Judgment: 2018-03-07 · Court archive

High Court grants Ulster Bank judgment for €7.53m against Liam Mulvaney

The court found no reasonable probability that the defendant had a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s summary judgment application.

High Court, Commercial · [2018] IEHC 105

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Ulster Bank Ireland
  • Liam Mulvaney (Defendant)
What

The court found no reasonable probability that the defendant had a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s summary judgment application.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Mulvaney sought to have the case heard as a plenary matter. His principal submission was that the bank lacked standing to bring the proceedings because he believed a letter showed it had sold his loan to Promontoria. The court said the documents established that the bank had executed a Declaration of Trust in Promontoria’s favour, and that this did not prevent the bank from bringing the proceedings.

The High Court has granted Ulster Bank Ireland DAC judgment for €7,528,080.99 against Liam Mulvaney, ruling that there was no reasonable probability he had a real or bona fide defence to the bank’s claim.

Mr Justice Twomey delivered the ex tempore judgment on 7 March 2018 in the Commercial list. The case was a summary judgment application concerning money advanced under four loan agreements. The judgment says Mr Mulvaney did not deny that the bank advanced and paid him the sums under those agreements, or that he failed to repay them.

Mr Mulvaney sought to have the case heard as a plenary matter. His principal submission was that the bank lacked standing to bring the proceedings because he believed a letter showed it had sold his loan to Promontoria. The court said the documents established that the bank had executed a Declaration of Trust in Promontoria’s favour, and that this did not prevent the bank from bringing the proceedings.

The judge said he had considered Mr Mulvaney’s other arguments but would not address each one individually. The judgment described some as lacking credibility, including his claim that he had not received the bank’s terms and conditions despite three letters enclosing them. Other submissions were described as bald assertions without a basis, incorrect, or unintelligible. The court also rejected as incorrect the claim that the bank had issued two sets of summary summons for the same debt, explaining that the second proceedings concerned a well charging order.

The court granted judgment in the amount sought in the summary summons. The judgment does not set out any separate order on costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review