The High Court determined that €31,542,125.93 was due on facilities advanced to John Morrissey by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd (IBRC) as of 3 June 2014. The ruling settled the amount due at that date, but did not determine who was entitled to obtain judgment after the loans were sold, or purportedly sold, to LSREF III Stone Investments Ltd.
Ms Justice Finlay Geoghegan found that the facility terms required interest from 2003 to be calculated using a 360/360 day-count convention. The bank had instead applied a 365/360 method, charging interest for five additional days each year. The court accepted that the bank’s expert’s calculation of the overcharge under that method was not precise, but deducted €143,676.64 from the amount certified by the bank’s manager. The judge said the approximation favoured Morrissey by a relatively small amount and avoided further calculation and costs.
The amount set by the court was the certified figure of €31,685,802.57 less that deduction. The court also accepted the evidence supporting the credit given for cash held by the receiver. It found no basis in the proceedings to deduct further sums for swap costs, the €600,000 deposit Morrissey said should have been credited before interest was charged, or receiver realisations on the dates they were made.
The judgment followed earlier rulings on the scope of the case. In May 2013, the court had found that IBRC was entitled to make demands under the February 2009 facilities and that the relationship between the parties was contractual, not fiduciary. The remaining hearing concerned the amount due and additional issues arising after IBRC disclosed a March 2014 loan-sale agreement. Morrissey argued that continuing the case after that agreement involved maintenance or champerty. The court had ordered production of a redacted copy, but in this judgment left the question of entitlement to judgment for a later decision.
A separate application by IBRC and Stone to substitute Stone as plaintiff had been heard on 7 October 2014 and was to be addressed in a separate judgment. The court said the remaining issues concerned that substitution and any unresolved question about the loan sale and its purported completion in July 2014. Interest accruing after 3 June and further receiver receipts would also affect any final judgment.