The High Court has proposed entering judgment for €3,893,135.06 against three guarantors of loans to a property development company, after rejecting their request for leave to defend the bank’s summary claim. The judge said she would hear counsel on the question of interest.
Ms Justice Baker delivered the judgment on 9 February 2016 in proceedings brought by ACC Loan Management Ltd against Seamus Dolan, John Waldron and John A. Waldron. The claim was based on five guarantees and indemnities covering loans to DW Developments Ltd, whose directors and shareholders included the defendants.
The facilities included loans for development work in Co. Mayo, a land purchase and working capital. The defendants raised several grounds, including that the bank’s affidavit evidence was hearsay, the guarantees were not properly proved, and the receiver had not been properly appointed. They also alleged a joint venture or collateral agreement linking repayment to the sale of completed units, and argued that the bank should have allowed more time before enforcing the guarantees.
The judge found the bank had provided sufficient evidence of the loans, demands, guarantees and sums claimed. She relied in part on letters from the defendants’ solicitor that recorded details of the facilities, security and outstanding balances. She said the challenge to the receiver’s appointment belonged to separate proceedings and did not provide a defence to this debt claim.
On the alleged joint venture and agreement to delay repayment, the judge found the defendants had not shown a credible defence. She said the documents described commercial lending and showed the bank had sometimes allowed flexibility over sale proceeds, while reserving its right to demand repayment. She rejected the argument that the bank’s dealings with the development established a joint venture, an indefinite stay on enforcement or a sufficiently supported collateral contract.
The judge also rejected the arguments about proof of the guarantees, the time allowed for repayment, the construction of the facility letters and alleged bad faith in offering further finance. She noted the company had not accepted the further loan offer, so she found no causal link between the alleged bad faith and the claim.
The court treated the application as a motion for summary judgment in which the defendants sought leave to defend. The judge concluded that they had not established a credible factual or legal defence and proposed judgment for the claimed principal sum. The judgment does not record a final order on interest; counsel were to be heard on that issue.