The High Court has granted Cabot Financial (Ireland) Limited summary judgment for €495,807.03 in principal against John Hamill and Brian Hamill, finding that they had raised no arguable defence to that part of the claim.
In a judgment delivered on 12 July 2023, Mr Justice Mark Heslin said the borrowers did not dispute entering the loan facilities, drawing down the money, defaulting on repayments, receiving demands or making no payment after demand. The dispute concerned Cabot’s proof that it had acquired the loan, the notices of assignment and the reliability of the account information.
Cabot initially sought €899,830.84, comprising €495,807.03 principal, €357,815.50 interest and €53,461.70 surcharge, less adjustments of €7,253.48. At the hearing, however, it sought summary judgment only for the principal. It agreed that its claims for interest and surcharge interest should go to a plenary hearing. The borrowers opposed judgment for any part of the claim.
The judge held that sworn evidence and transfer documents established, on the balance of probabilities, that the loan had passed from ACC Loan Management DAC to Coöperatieve Rabo Bank U.A. and then to Cabot. He said a full set of transfer documents was not required in the circumstances. The court also found that notices sent in 2018 and 2019, together with the October 2020 demand, met the notice requirements under section 28(6) of the Supreme Court of Judicature (Ireland) Act 1877.
On the account evidence, the judge said the borrowers had not alleged that the principal figure was wrongly calculated or produced evidence challenging its accuracy. He rejected their request for discovery of underlying records, describing it in the circumstances as a “fishing expedition”.
The court refused leave to defend the principal claim and awarded Cabot summary judgment for €495,807.03. It directed that only Cabot’s entitlement to interest and surcharge interest remain for determination at a plenary hearing. The issues about transfer, statutory notice and reliance on business records were decided against the borrowers and cannot be raised again in that hearing.
The parties were invited to agree a draft order within 14 days. The judge gave a preliminary, strongly held view that Cabot should receive its costs, but said written submissions should be provided if the parties could not agree the order.