The High Court has awarded Ulster Bank Ireland Limited €1,056,698.48 against Peter Reaney over loans for a residential development in Ballaghaderreen, Co Roscommon, dismissing his counterclaim and any claim to set off losses against the debt.
In a judgment delivered on 15 February 2017, Mr Justice McDermott found that the loans were repayable on demand under the facility terms. Although proceeds from unit sales were expected to repay the loans, that expectation did not remove the bank’s contractual right to demand repayment. The court found that the bank had demanded payment and the debt remained unpaid.
The dispute concerned funding for a development of three blocks. A facility letter dated 28 March 2008 refinanced an existing balance and provided additional funds for construction, site works, interest and fees. Its conditions included appointing Jackie McMahon Cost and Consultancy Ltd to supervise works and certify drawdowns. The bank later paid Mr McMahon for work on the site, including costs above the original estimate. Reaney objected to the costs and said he had been excluded from the project. The bank did not seek to recover those additional expenses from him beyond the amount due under the March 2008 facility.
Reaney alleged wrongdoing by the bank and sought damages for matters including negligence, breach of contract and trespass to goods. The judge described his pleadings as prolix and non-compliant with court rules, and his evidence as at times incoherent and unconvincing. The court found no evidence on which it could award him damages, and was not satisfied that the bank breached the facility terms or its special conditions. It accepted evidence that Reaney had agreed to Mr McMahon’s company supervising the continuing works.
A related case brought by the bank against Reaney and Teresa Reaney, who was sued as guarantor, had been consolidated with the loan claim and adopted into the High Court. It sought a well-charging order over property in County Roscommon. The judge said the factual findings on the loans applied to both cases, but further submissions were still required on the orders sought in the well-charging proceedings.
The only orders made in this judgment were judgment for the bank for the amount claimed and dismissal of Reaney’s counterclaim or set-off. The court adjourned costs until the adopted proceedings were determined; it did not decide the well-charging order in this judgment.