The High Court has granted summary judgment in favour of LSREF III Achill Investments Limited for debts arising from loan facilities originally provided by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited to Michael Corbett and Kevin Corbett.
Mr Justice Max Barrett ruled that there was no basis to send the case to a full hearing. The judgment records an order for €10,554,672.28 against Michael Corbett and €47,257,679.21 against both defendants. The latter figure is a joint claim against the two men. The judgment does not state that the combined sums are a single joint award.
The facilities were documented in letters dated 12 October 2010 and 7 June 2011. Ulster Bank transferred its rights to the plaintiff by deed dated 17 November 2014. The facilities were repayable on demand, and the court accepted the plaintiff’s evidence that demand had been made and the amounts claimed were correct.
The defendants argued, among other things, that the 2011 agreement was not binding because no new funds had been drawn, that conditions precedent had not been satisfied, and that Ulster Bank had fundamentally breached the agreement by refusing part of a facility. They also relied on an earlier facility letter and alleged representations that lending would be rolled over. The judge rejected those arguments, finding that the 2011 letter superseded earlier arrangements and that the evidence did not support the alleged representations or provide a credible basis to expect supporting evidence.
The judgment also addressed the defendants’ claims concerning receivers appointed by the plaintiff. Separate proceedings had been brought over those appointments. Mr Justice Barrett said those proceedings were the appropriate route for complaints about the receivers, and that the assertions made in the debt case did not prevent summary judgment.
The judge acknowledged the defendants’ difficult position but concluded that their arguments did not justify a plenary hearing. The ruling determines the plaintiff’s application for summary recovery of the debts; the judgment describes the receivership dispute as the subject of separate proceedings.