The High Court has ruled that Feniton Property Finance DAC is entitled to judgment on loan balances claimed against Peter White, Alicia White and corporate borrowers, while leaving the disputed default interest for a plenary hearing.
Mr Justice Quinn’s judgment concerns two summary judgment actions in the Commercial List. The claims arise from loans originally advanced by Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Limited between 2006 and 2008 and later assigned to Feniton. One action concerns facilities to Peter and Alicia White; the other concerns facilities to Dublin Land Securities Limited and claims involving Peter White and Blue Nile Holdings Limited.
After the borrowers defaulted, the parties signed a settlement agreement in May 2017. It required personal obligors to pay €7.137 million and corporate obligors €4.293 million, with releases from the loans and securities conditional on payment and other terms. Only the initial €1 million was paid. Feniton terminated the agreement after a €4 million instalment was missed, and receivers later sold properties securing the loans.
Feniton began the proceedings in July 2018, seeking summary judgment. The latest figures cited in the judgment were €2,990,319.97 plus interest against Peter and Alicia White and €1,364,159.85 plus interest against Dublin Land Securities. The plaintiff agreed that its default-interest claim, stated as €532,342.65 as of 1 April 2019, should go to a plenary hearing. The defendants were given leave to defend that part of the claim.
The defendants raised issues including the conduct and costs of the receiverships, alleged accounting problems, and the timing and prices of property sales. Alicia White also relied on the Statute of Limitations and alleged coercion in entering the settlement. The judge found those matters did not establish an arguable defence to the loan balances. He said the plaintiff had produced the facility letters, account statements and demands supporting its claim. He also noted that the settlement recorded acknowledgements of liability and that the missed payment triggered its default provisions.
The court did not determine any separate substantive claim concerning the receivers’ conduct. It concluded that such complaints did not defeat Feniton’s claim for repayment in these proceedings. The judge said he would enter judgment, excluding the default-interest claim remitted to trial, for the amounts in an affidavit dated 1 April 2019, subject to submissions on the calculations and any necessary corrections. The judgment therefore records the court’s conclusion on entitlement to the balances, while leaving the final figures subject to that step.