The Court of Appeal has dismissed David Wright’s appeal against a High Court order granting Launceston Property Finance DAC summary judgment for €1,742,842.27. The balance of the lender’s claim remains for a plenary hearing; the appeal court said the High Court had not made a final determination of the total amount due.
In a judgment delivered on 18 December 2019, Mr Justice Patrick McCarthy said the High Court had properly entered judgment for the portion of the debt for which Wright had shown no bona fide defence, while remitting the rest of the claim for a full hearing. The appeal concerned an order made by High Court President Peter Kelly on 5 October 2017.
Wright had borrowed €2.252 million from Anglo Irish Bank under a facility letter dated 23 September 2008. Launceston contended that it acquired the loan in May 2014 and sought summary judgment of €2,553,830.80, plus continuing interest. The appeal court rejected Wright’s arguments that the High Court judge should have recused himself or adjourned the case, and his complaints about how the hearing was conducted and the evidence presented.
The court also rejected challenges concerning alleged wrongdoing by the original lender, differences in account numbers, missing loan documentation and redactions in the loan transfer records. It said the evidence before the High Court established that Wright’s loan had been transferred to Launceston, and that the redactions protecting other debtors did not provide a defence.
Wright disputed the amount claimed, including whether rent of about €16,400 had been credited and a €299.27 account entry. The appeal court noted that Launceston’s affidavit evidence said rental income had been credited. It said the €299.27 issue was raised for the first time on appeal and could, at most, support a defence to that small part of the liability. Wright’s claim for VAT credits was also raised on appeal, without evidence before the High Court, and was not considered.
The High Court’s calculation had excluded €164,733.54 in sale costs and allowed Wright the benefit of the difference between gross and net sale proceeds. The Court of Appeal said that even if the disputed interest charge or rent credit were unresolved, they could not reduce the amount owed below the judgment already entered. It stressed that the order did not finally decide the total debt, then dismissed the appeal.