The High Court has entered judgment for Bank of Ireland for €670,033.74 on a commercial mortgage account, while allowing Mohammed Nawaz and Nussrat Munir to defend the bank’s claim on a separate loan account.
In a judgment delivered on 14 January 2019, Mr Justice McDermott ruled on the bank’s application for summary judgment. He found no arguable defence to the claim concerning a €700,000 facility to help purchase Unit 7, Longford Shopping Centre, drawn down in April 2007. The amount awarded includes principal and interest due to 25 May 2017, with further interest to accrue.
The bank had sought repayment under two accounts. The second, account 64645553, related to facilities first agreed in 2003 to help buy a warehouse at Unit 13 Fashion City, M50 Business Park, Ballymount, and renewed in 2006. The defendants argued that the 2006 agreement was unsupported by consideration because no new funds were advanced and the original facility was already in place.
The judge held that this argument crossed the low threshold for an arguable defence at the summary judgment stage. He therefore did not grant judgment on that account. The judgment does not decide whether the defence will succeed; it permits that issue to be resolved through further proceedings.
Other proposed defences were rejected. They included arguments about consumer credit protections, missing life insurance cover required as security for the 2007 facility, the bank’s demands for repayment, and a proposed 2013 refinancing that was never implemented. The judge also rejected Nussrat Munir’s request to send the case to a plenary hearing to obtain further bank records, finding the request did not identify how the documents could support a defence.
Nussrat Munir was sued as administratrix of her late husband’s estate. Mohammed Munir died on 4 April 2008. The judge recorded that proceeds from a Friends First life policy were applied in partial repayment of the earlier loan account.
The judgment grants the bank relief on the 2007 commercial mortgage account and leaves the claim on the 2006 facility unresolved pending the defendants’ arguable consideration defence.