The High Court has granted Allied Irish Bank summary judgment against Michael Fingleton over a joint loan facility of €4.6 million, ruling that he had not raised an arguable defence to repayment. The judgment was delivered by Ms Justice Baker on 27 March 2015.
The loan was advanced to Mr Fingleton and Francis O’Brien in October 2006 to buy two tracts of land in County Monaghan. It was repayable on demand. Mr O’Brien had consented to judgment for the amounts claimed, so the motion proceeded against Mr Fingleton alone.
AIB said €5,454,279.29 was owed as of 7 June 2013. The judgment records that the figure included interest. Mr Fingleton disputed aspects of the contractual terms and the bank’s interest claim, but did not deny signing the loan letters. He said he had not received the bank’s general business lending conditions and had signed the letters without reading them.
Justice Baker held that the conditions had been incorporated into the facility letters by express reference, even if a copy had not been provided. She also rejected the argument that the interest terms supplied an arguable defence. The judgment says the facility letters specified interest at prime plus 1.5 percentage points, then stated as 5%, while later referring to prime plus 1.25%. The judge said the bank statements identified changing rates and that Mr Fingleton had not argued that the bank charged a rate other than prime plus 1.25%.
The judge also rejected Mr Fingleton’s reliance on the 2006 Consumer Protection Code. She found he was a “customer” for the Code’s general principles, but concluded that he had identified no breach that could provide a defence to the debt claim.
Mr Fingleton further argued that AIB, given its State ownership and obligations under the Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act 2010, had to hear his submissions before demanding repayment. The judge held that AIB was exercising private contractual rights under the loan documents, rather than statutory public powers. She therefore found no public law duty to provide the hearing he sought.
The court concluded that Mr Fingleton had no arguable defence and entered summary judgment for AIB. The judgment does not state the final amount of the order. A claimed equitable interest in land held as security was discussed as a matter that could arise on an application to stay execution; the court did not decide that claim in this judgment.