The High Court has granted Zurich Bank summary judgment for €8,157,545.06 against five defendants trading as Seafield Holdings Partnership, finding they had no arguable defence to the bank’s claim for repayment of a loan and interest.
In a judgment delivered on 28 January 2011, Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan ruled that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the amount sought. The application was made under a facility letter dated 6 December 2007, as amended in January 2009. The bank also sought interest, but the judgment’s final order states the principal sum of €8,157,545.06 “as sought in the notice of motion”; it does not specify a separate interest amount in that order.
The defendants did not dispute entering the written loan agreement, accepting its variation, drawing down the funds or leaving the interest claimed unpaid. Their main argument was that the loan was, in commercial reality, non-recourse: they said the bank could recover only from the properties secured for the loan, not from them personally.
Richard Coffey’s affidavit said €550,000 included in a stated €840,000 allowance for professional fees had instead been intended to fund the first year’s interest. He argued that the bank’s credit committee had been misinformed about the purpose of the money and that the parties’ conduct supported an implied term limiting the bank’s recourse to the secured properties. For this summary judgment application, the court assumed the defendants could establish the primary facts described in the affidavit.
The judge concluded that even if the proposed inferences were drawn, they did not establish an arguable defence that the loan was non-recourse. The accepted written terms named the defendants individually as the borrower, required repayment of the loan and unpaid interest, and made their liability joint and several. The judge also noted that Coffey did not claim an express oral agreement with the bank removing personal liability.
The defendants’ alternative submission relied on alleged statements about the bank’s long-term interest in the Irish property market, discussions about possible construction finance and the alleged misstatement concerning professional fees. They did not claim those statements were actionable misrepresentations or that construction finance had been agreed. The judge found no arguable issue requiring the written facility to be considered at a plenary hearing.
The decision was on the bank’s application for summary judgment. The court granted judgment; it did not remit the dispute for a full hearing.