The High Court dismissed property developer Patrick O’Connor’s claims against Bank of Scotland and other defendants, and entered judgment for Bank of Scotland plc in a separate debt action. The court awarded the bank €7,683,999.96, the amount it said was due as of 21 October 2014, including interest.
In a judgment delivered on 20 February 2015, Mr Justice Cregan considered two sets of proceedings: O’Connor’s claims arising from commercial property loans and the bank’s claim to recover its debt. The claims against the bank included allegations of misrepresentation, deceit, undue influence and negligence. O’Connor also alleged negligence and conflicts of interest by receivers and solicitors. These were allegations, not findings against the defendants.
The court rejected O’Connor’s claim that the security he granted in 2002 had wrongly included Lindville’s common areas. It found that he and the bank intended those areas, along with relevant sites, to be covered by the mortgage. Because the court found the 2002 security was correctly understood, it also rejected his related claim that his solicitors had negligently carried the alleged error into the 2007 loan security.
The judge found that a Bank of Scotland representative had not promised, at a March 2010 meeting, to fund the Ashley and Five Firs development through to completion in exchange for additional security. The court also rejected O’Connor’s claim that the bank had promised €100,000 to finish a showhouse. It found that the 2010 loan offer refinanced and combined the 2007 and 2008 facilities, and that O’Connor knew the earlier loans were being amalgamated before signing. The court noted that construction funding under the 2008 facility depended on contracted sales, which had not been secured.
The judge rejected the claims that receiver Michael Cotter had a conflict of interest and that the receivers failed to maintain the properties. He also found that the receivers’ decision to let planning permission lapse on two sites was based on expert advice aimed at improving the estate’s overall value. The court dismissed the claims against the solicitors, finding no evidence they had failed to protect O’Connor’s interests in the relevant loan transactions.
The bank’s debt claim was supported by loan documents, account evidence and an unchallenged bank certificate. The court also rejected O’Connor’s argument that he was a consumer under the Consumer Credit Act 1995, finding that he borrowed in the course of his property development business. It dismissed all his claims in the first proceedings and entered judgment for the bank in the second.