The High Court granted summary judgment to Feniton Property Finance Designated Activity Company against Eugene McCool for €2,631,185.27, the amount claimed over his personal borrowings and a guarantee of loans to Lyngarth Ltd.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2019, Mr Justice Noonan said McCool did not dispute signing the relevant documents, that the money claimed had been advanced, or that it remained unpaid. He concluded McCool had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence and said it was clear that he had no defence. The judgment does not state a separate breakdown of the award between the personal loan and the company guarantee.
The personal loan originated with Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd and was for renovating a property at 159 Howth Road, Dublin. The company facilities originated with ICC Bank and Bank of Scotland (Ireland) for the purchase, development and conversion of a Kinsale property, where Guardwell Lodge hostel had been built. McCool guaranteed Lyngarth’s obligations in 2009. The plaintiff acquired the loans and guarantee through a 2015 loan sale and assignment.
McCool argued that the lender’s predecessors had breached agreements connected with the Kinsale development, leaving him with a counterclaim that could match or exceed the debt. The judge said that, even if the asserted facts were assumed to be correct, the proposed claim belonged to Lyngarth and was against non-parties. It had also been raised years after the alleged events and was unsupported by evidence sufficient to move beyond assertion.
The judge rejected McCool’s argument that the guarantee was ineffective because only €70,000 of a €466,000 facility had been advanced. He said the facility terms contemplated that only part might be drawn down if conditions were not met, and the guarantee covered sums due on demand. The court also found no limitation issue: the plaintiff’s demand under the guarantee was made on 2 October 2017.
McCool’s complaints about alleged undervalue sales of properties in Kinsale and Clontarf were also insufficient to establish a defence. The judgment said any such claims would lie against the receiver or on behalf of Lyngarth, and noted that the allegations lacked independent supporting evidence. The court also rejected his objections concerning hearsay, the registration of charges and alleged surveillance as grounds to resist the claim.