The High Court granted Promontoria (Aran) Limited summary judgment for €2 million against Michael Wallace under a guarantee of M&J Wallace Limited’s bank borrowing. Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern ruled on 29 January 2016 that the evidence did not raise an arguable defence requiring a plenary hearing.
The judgment records that M&J Wallace Limited borrowed €2.1 million from Ulster Bank under a facility letter dated 23 June 2009. The company defaulted, and its debt exceeded €2 million. Wallace accepted that he had signed a guarantee and indemnity dated 30 March 2009, and that the company had not repaid the loan.
The bank transferred its interest in the company’s loan and Wallace’s guarantee through documents dated December 2014 and February 2015. The bank notified both the company and Wallace of the assignment on 27 February 2015. Wallace did not dispute the notices or the bank director’s evidence about the transfer documents. The court found that the plaintiff had established its title to the loan and guarantee with clear, uncontradicted evidence.
Wallace argued that the plaintiff had not sufficiently shown it was the bank’s successor in title. He also said proceedings were premature because a receiver had been appointed over company property and a sale might reduce his liability. The court found his concerns about the assignment tentative and unsupported by evidence. It also held that he could not rely on the plaintiff’s receivership appointment while challenging the plaintiff’s entitlement to bring the claim.
The company had been sent a demand on 14 August 2015 for €2,263,558.29. After it failed to pay, the plaintiff appointed a receiver over company property at 24 Lower Ormond Quay, Dublin 1. The judgment records that the company had not repaid the debt. It does not determine what a future property sale might realise or whether any proceeds would reduce Wallace’s liability.
The court rejected Wallace’s argument under section 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877, finding evidence that the assignment was in writing under the bank’s hand. It concluded that the evidence was either admitted or not disputed on a basis sufficient to require a plenary hearing, and entered judgment for the €2 million claimed.