The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc and AIB Mortgage Bank summary judgment against Tadgh O’Brien for the amounts they sought under four loan facilities. Mr Justice Max Barrett delivered the judgment on 15 February 2017.
The plaintiffs sought judgment without a full trial. The court considered whether Mr O’Brien had shown a fair or reasonable probability of a real defence. It concluded that he had not done so for any of the four loans, and granted summary judgment on each claim.
For Loan 1, a €360,000 facility offered in December 2010, the court identified uncertainty in the sanction letter’s description of the facility and the meaning of “review/refinance” by 20 December 2011. The letter did not specify how the capital was to be repaid, and Mr O’Brien’s continuing interest payments were consistent with his understanding that the financing continued. The court nevertheless held that the amount claimed was recoverable under the facility’s cross-default or on-demand terms, and granted summary judgment.
Loan 2 was for €876,809. Mr O’Brien said he had not received a review by the stated review/refinance date. The court found no evidence supporting that assertion. It also noted evidence that the repayment obligations had not been met and held that the amount claimed was repayable under cross-default or on-demand provisions. Summary judgment was granted on this loan too.
For Loan 3, a €1.542 million mortgage loan, Mr O’Brien objected that AIB was pursuing the debt as agent for AIB Mortgage Bank, which had become the creditor. The court found the transfer and agency arrangements legally proper. It also considered whether AIB had given the notice required before demanding early repayment, and found that a 22 August 2012 letter gave sufficient notice. The court granted summary judgment on Loan 3.
Loan 4 was a €205,000 mortgage. Mr O’Brien argued that he was not in default on it. The court found that the mortgage secured the total debt owed to the lender, and that default on another facility, including Loan 3, triggered the mortgage’s default provisions. It held that Loan 4 could therefore be enforced despite any continuing repayments on that loan and granted summary judgment.
The judgment records that summary judgment was granted for the amounts sought for all four loans. It does not state the total sum awarded.