The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc and AIB Finance Limited judgment for 80% of their respective loan claims against Desmond and Agnes Killoran, while sending the remaining 20% of each claim to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 24 July 2015, Mr Justice Michael Moriarty ordered judgment of €12,602,258.19 against Mr Killoran and €10,836,095.86 against Mrs Killoran. He said the full sums could not be recovered against both defendants, as that would amount to double recovery.
The banks had sought summary judgment over loan facilities extended between 2002 and 2006 for purposes connected with the defendants’ property acquisition and development business. The judgment records that the defendants had made no capital or interest repayments since June 2011 and that the banks issued demand letters in September and December 2012. The banks claimed €15,752,822.74 from Mr Killoran and €13,545,119.83 from Mrs Killoran, who was not party to the March 2004 facility.
The defendants raised several arguments against summary judgment, including disputes about whether the facilities were repayable on demand, whether terms and conditions applied to a 2006 facility, the interest rate, set-off, property valuations and alleged representations about reduced rates. The judge rejected those grounds as a basis to resist judgment in full. He also rejected a late argument that the banks’ debt evidence did not comply with the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, noting that the defendants had not disputed the borrowed sums in their affidavits.
The judgment records that the banks had set off €116,381 held on deposit in Mrs Killoran’s name, reducing both liabilities. It also records a credit of €404,256.82 after an administrative error caused a higher interest rate to be applied for a period of about five years. The judge said there remained a limited issue about whether that credit fully compensated the defendants. He also noted that the banks had not obtained valuations for properties offered as security under three facility letters.
The judge said those matters did not defeat the banks’ claims, but warranted consideration of whether a further allowance might be due. He also expressed concern about a contractual term barring set-off or counterclaim, given the banks’ own use of set-off, and the potential for duplicating legal proceedings. Taking the outstanding issues into account, he remitted 20% of each claim to plenary hearing and allowed judgment for the remaining 80%.