The Court of Appeal has dismissed Eugene McCool’s appeal against a High Court summary judgment of €228,005.36 in favour of ACC Loan Management DAC. The appeal concerned whether McCool had shown an arguable defence requiring the bank’s debt claim to proceed to a full hearing. The court upheld the summary judgment and refused to stay its execution on the basis of an alleged counterclaim.
The debt arose from a €630,000 bridging finance facility agreed in May 2006, secured against two properties on Shanard Road, Dublin. The facility was intended to restructure existing loans and had a two-year term. McCool argued that he had sought a long-term “top up” of a 20-year mortgage and that the bank had mistakenly replaced it with short-term borrowing. The court found that the signed facility letter and three later signed extensions clearly set out the bridging loan terms and did not support an arguable defence based on a bank error or duress.
McCool also alleged that the bank mismanaged his accounts and improperly applied surcharge interest. The Court of Appeal accepted that surcharge had initially been applied to the loan account at issue, but found that the bank recalculated its claim without surcharge, limiting it to principal and standard interest. It concluded that the bank had adequately explained the revised figure and that the evidence did not establish the alleged account mix-up or overcharging as a defence.
A further claim concerned the appointment and conduct of a receiver over the Shanard Road properties. McCool alleged that the properties were sold below market value and that about €25,000 worth of furniture and contents was removed. The court found no evidence that the properties had been sold below market value. It also noted that the receiver had invited McCool on several occasions to remove his belongings before the properties were sold. The court held that he had not established an arguable counterclaim that would justify a stay of execution.
Separately, the court granted ACC’s application to join Cabot Financial (Ireland) Limited as a co-plaintiff and co-respondent in the appeal. It found a prima facie basis for Cabot’s interest in the judgment sum, but did not determine the ultimate validity of the loan assignments. Cabot may participate as a respondent only within the limits set out in the judgment. It cannot execute the High Court judgment without a further application on notice to McCool, where he may raise substantive objections to the assignments.
The appeal was dismissed. The court expressed a provisional view that McCool should pay the usual appeal and High Court costs, with seven days to seek a short hearing on costs. For the motion to join Cabot, the court awarded McCool costs limited to expenses incurred responding to that application.