The High Court has granted summary judgment to Promontoria (Oyster) DAC against David Langan, Gregory Langan and Brendan Langan over loans and guarantees linked to their farming business in north Dublin.
Mr Justice Cian Ferriter ruled on 21 March 2022 that the first and second defendants owed €523,941.18 jointly, while the third defendant owed €435,142.79 under guarantees. Promontoria was also awarded its costs, to be assessed if the parties could not agree them.
The proceedings began in February 2015, when Ulster Bank Ireland Limited sought repayment under facilities made in 2010. Promontoria was later substituted as plaintiff after acquiring the relevant loans and guarantees. The court said the defendants did not deny receiving the loan money or benefiting from it. The sums awarded reflected €218,313.17 in net proceeds from the sale of five acres secured against the borrowing, which the receiver had applied to the liabilities.
Gregory Langan sought an adjournment, citing a complaint to An Garda Síochána about the land sale and the defendants’ recent discharge of their solicitor. The judge refused the adjournment, noting the case’s lengthy history and that Gregory Langan was able to address the issues. The court also considered a late affidavit from David Langan because the plaintiff did not object to its use.
The defendants challenged whether Promontoria had acquired the debt and whether it had admissible evidence of the amounts due. The judge found that the transfer deed and related evidence showed the loans and guarantees had been assigned to Promontoria. He also accepted evidence from a former Ulster Bank officer concerning the facilities, arrears, demands and account balances. The amended claim set out the principal, interest and calculation periods, and Promontoria waived any claim for interest after December 2014.
The defendants also raised arguments about the guarantees, consumer protections, regulatory compliance and interest rates. These included claims that Brendan Langan lacked independent legal advice or signed under duress. The judge found those claims unsupported by evidence beyond assertion, and noted that the guarantees recorded solicitor involvement. He found the loans related to the defendants’ farming business, and that the mortgage arrears code did not apply because no possession order was sought in these proceedings. He also rejected the interest and other regulatory arguments as insufficient to disclose an arguable defence.
The ruling determined only the summary judgment application: the court concluded that no arguable defence had been shown on the material presented and entered judgment for the stated sums. It did not determine the separate complaint about the land sale; an earlier application for an interlocutory injunction to stop that sale had been refused.