The High Court has sent Cave Projects Limited’s claim for €11,485,543.14 against two defendants to a plenary hearing, declining to grant summary judgment. Mr Justice Noonan said he could not conclude that it was “very clear” the defendants had no case.
The claim concerns loans advanced by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland to a group of defendants for the purchase and development of land. The bank began the proceedings in 2011. The loans were later acquired by National Asset Loan Management Limited (NALM) and sold to Cave Projects, which was substituted as plaintiff by order of the High Court Master in February 2013. The plaintiff said the amount claimed remained due and no repayments had been made.
The motion sought summary judgment against John Kelly and Joseph O’Hara. The claims against the other three named defendants had been compromised. Kelly and O’Hara raised several defences, including allegations concerning the bank’s role in a €750,000 investment in one of its products, compliance with loan conditions requiring land valuations, and the use of loan funds. They also challenged aspects of the plaintiff’s evidence about the transfers of the loans and the amount outstanding.
The judge identified at least three issues that could not clearly be resolved through the summary procedure. The alleged investment in a bank product raised questions about what duties the bank may have owed the defendants and whether the relationship went beyond that of lender and borrower. The judge said the defendants’ contention was not entirely fanciful, referring to compensation apparently paid to defendants who had settled in connection with the same transaction.
The valuation condition was also arguable. The plaintiff had argued that the condition was for the bank’s benefit and could be waived, but the judge noted that a previous High Court decision had found that such conditions could benefit both parties and could not necessarily be waived unilaterally.
The defendants also disputed whether parts of the plaintiff’s affidavits and business records were admissible hearsay. The judge did not decide that evidential issue, but said the differing authorities illustrated why the case was unsuitable for summary determination.
The court did not decide the underlying loan claim or determine the defendants’ allegations. It refused to grant liberty to enter judgment at that stage and remitted the matter for plenary hearing.