The High Court has granted Zurich Bank summary judgment against Jim McConnon for €31,883,565.56, together with continuing interest, after finding that none of his proposed defences provided an arguable basis to proceed to trial.
The bank’s claim arose from a facility letter dated 15 June 2007, accepted by McConnon on 18 June. The facility was initially €32,522,613. The judgment records that he drew down the funds and had not repaid the loan. The facility was later increased by €580,000 to €33,102,613, and its term was extended by about five months in January 2009.
McConnon had sought funding for a shopping-centre development in Castleblayney, Co Monaghan. Before Zurich became involved, he had acquired two sites and spent about €10 million on the project. The judgment recounts that the development encountered serious difficulties as the economy stalled. McConnon estimated the centre’s value at between €1 million and €2 million.
The judge considered four proposed defences. The first concerned the facility letter’s valuation conditions. McConnon argued that the bank had failed to scrutinise valuations of the sites. The court held that the relevant clauses governed conditions for requesting advances and that the bank could waive them; it found no basis for McConnon to rely on them as a defence.
The second defence relied on a November 2009 standstill letter. The bank had agreed not to enforce the loans during a three-month period, later extended, while proposals were considered. The judge found that the bank honoured the standstill and had no arguable additional obligation to produce revised repayment schedules or loan offers. The court also rejected frustration based on the collapse in property values, describing the loan relationship as that of lender and borrower rather than a risk-sharing partnership.
Finally, McConnon argued that alleged breaches of the Financial Regulator’s Consumer Protection Code could provide a defence. The judgment held that he was not a consumer under the Code and noted that, even assuming alleged breaches for this stage, the Code did not make the loan unenforceable or exempt him from repayment.
The judge concluded that the case met the threshold for the exceptional grant of summary judgment. The ruling determined the bank’s application; it did not send the proposed defences to a trial.