The High Court entered summary judgments totalling €7,959,003.95 for Promontoria (Aran) Limited in three debt recovery proceedings against John Hughes and other defendants. The October 18, 2017 judgment by Mr Justice Brian McGovern excluded a €502,864.59 current-account claim that the lender said it was no longer pursuing. The court also refused applications to stay the judgments pending complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman (FSO).
The proceedings had previously been heard by Mr Justice Max Barrett, who delivered judgment on July 11, 2017. After that judgment, Thomas Browne and his solicitor sought the judge’s recusal, citing Barrett’s former senior role at IBRC when it decided to pursue separate litigation against Browne. McGovern said there was no suggestion the IBRC proceedings were connected to these cases and no evidence Barrett had been involved in that decision. Barrett recused himself as a precaution; his judgment was vacated and had not been perfected. McGovern heard the applications again on substantially the same papers and adopted the vacated judgment’s reasoning, with changes concerning the current-account claim.
The three awards were €1,107,891.26 against John and Margaret Hughes in case 2016 No. 2379 S.; €3,495,933.99 against John Hughes in case 2016 No. 2380 S.; and €3,355,178.70 against John Hughes and Thomas Browne in the third case. The source’s opening heading identifies that third case as 2016 No. 2381 S., while paragraph 18 gives 2016 No. 2081 S.
In the first case, the defendants disputed liability, including whether they had agreed to the loan terms and whether Ulster Bank had orally promised to write off any shortfall after the sale of a Dublin property. The court found the asserted write-off agreement unsupported by corroborating evidence. It also accepted that sufficient proof had been provided of the loan’s transfer to Promontoria and said that use of funds could amount to acceptance of facility terms despite unsigned letters.
The earlier judgment had found the lender had not established its entitlement to summary judgment on the current account, which the defendants denied opening. McGovern’s judgment records that the lender was no longer pursuing the €502,864.59 claim in case 2380 S. He granted judgment for the other sums and refused a stay, concluding that the FSO complaint did not provide a defence or warrant delaying enforcement. The judgment records that the lender’s settlement proposal had lapsed when its terms were not met; it had not been withdrawn.