The High Court has rejected several arguments by Patrick and Angela McMahon against Permanent TSB’s summary claim for more than €1.25 million, while adjourning the question of whether the loan’s securitisation could provide a defence.
In an interim judgment dated 12 May 2015, Mr Justice Haughton said the case would return on 15 June for further affidavits and arguments about that issue. He made no final determination on the bank’s claim or on whether securitisation provides a bona fide defence.
Permanent TSB claims €976,360.96, plus continuing interest from 15 March 2011. The judgment states that the total claimed as of 12 March 2015 was €1,250,215.64. The bank says it lent the defendants €960,000 under a letter of offer dated 27 June 2008, to finance an investment property at 17 Shackleton House, Archers Wood, Dublin 15, and redeem existing Bank of Scotland (Ireland) borrowings. It says the loan went into default around 15 March 2011. These are the bank’s claims, not findings that the amount is due.
The defendants initially challenged the court’s jurisdiction, including on the basis that they had not been served with the originating summons. The judge found that an order had allowed service by prepaid post and that the defendants later entered an unconditional appearance. He held that any service defect had been corrected and that the court had jurisdiction to hear the bank’s motion for summary judgment.
The judge also rejected arguments that the summary procedure was unfair, that bank affidavit evidence and the plaintiff’s solicitor lacked proper authority, and that technical issues with affidavits or the absence of the original loan agreement established a bona fide defence. He said the bank could rely on a copy of the letter of offer and related documents under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Acts. He also held that alleged breaches of voluntary Central Bank codes and doubts raised about the bank’s solvency did not provide a defence to repayment.
On securitisation, the judgment records that the parties accepted the loan had been securitised, apparently on 20 March 2009. The bank argued that it retained legal title and could sue, and also relied on its role as mortgage manager. The judge directed that the securitisation documents be put on affidavit and that the defendants be allowed to respond. He said that, apart from this unresolved issue, the defendants had failed to show a bona fide defence.