The High Court has granted Mars Capital Finance Ireland DAC liberty to enter final judgment against Gary Kane and Andrea Kane, otherwise Andrea Spyrou, over a loan advanced in 2010. The court said the defendants had not raised a credible defence to the lender’s claim.
Mr Justice Mark Heslin’s judgment, delivered on 3 July 2025, concerns repayment of the loan, not possession of the defendants’ home. Separate possession proceedings are before the Circuit Court. The High Court noted those proceedings were stayed pending the outcome of this case.
AIB Mortgage Bank offered the defendants a €750,000 loan in August 2010, repayable over 32 years. Mars Capital’s case was that AIB transferred the loan to it in April 2021, that the defendants fell into arrears, and that €668,543.96 was due as of 31 May 2023. The judgment records inconsistent figures in the claim documents: one pleaded balance is €668,543.96, while the detailed breakdown gives €669,543.96. The plaintiff’s August 2023 motion sought €665,830.74 plus interest.
The judge found that the lender had provided prima facie evidence of the debt through affidavits, loan records and account statements. The defendants did not dispute signing the loan, receiving the money, defaulting on repayments or the accuracy of the account transactions. The court considered their arguments about service, the debt particulars, parallel possession proceedings, property-title issues, the lender’s evidence, the transfer date and loan conditions. It also addressed a late assertion that some terms were unfair, although the defendants had not identified a specific term.
Mr Justice Heslin concluded that the defendants’ objections were unsupported assertions or did not raise issues requiring a full hearing. He therefore granted liberty to enter final judgment in accordance with the plaintiff’s application. The order was not yet final in amount: the plaintiff was directed to file an affidavit by 14 July confirming current liability and crediting payments made. The parties were asked to agree the final orders, including costs, or file short submissions if they could not agree. The court indicated a preliminary view that the plaintiff should receive its costs and listed the matter for 24 July to address any dispute and make final orders.