The High Court has granted Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank Unlimited Company summary judgment for the unpaid balance of two loans to Moloney, after rejecting arguments that the case should proceed to a full hearing.
The bank said the loans, advanced in 2007, were for €2 million and €2.346 million. The judgment says it sought more than €4 million in principal, plus interest. The borrower did not dispute taking out the loans, the amount borrowed or the amount repaid, but contested when the bank’s claim became time-barred and argued that the loans may have been replaced by agreements in 2011 and 2012.
Justice Gearty found the evidence supported the bank’s position that the later arrangements were forbearance agreements and that property sale proceeds were used to pay down the original loans. The borrower had no documents of the alleged new agreements and did not recall their precise effect. The judge found his assertion that the payments related to separate debts was not credible. She also rejected his challenge to the bank’s records under the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, noting that he did not dispute the contents of the exhibited letters.
Under section 65 of the Statute of Limitations 1957, the judge held, part payment reset the limitation period without a separate acknowledgment of the debt. She found the final payments were made in April 2014 for one loan and April 2015 for the other. The proceedings began on 8 April 2019, within six years of those dates. As a result, whether the loans were secured did not affect the limitation question.
The borrower also argued that the bank had delayed too long after the first missed payments in 2009. The judge said the parties had continued to engage, with properties sold between 2012 and 2015 and proceeds applied to both loans. She found no arguable basis for the delay objection. The borrower had not brought a separate motion under Order 19 of the Rules of the Superior Courts seeking dismissal for delay.
The judge did not decide whether third parties had beneficial interests in the properties, saying that issue was unnecessary given her conclusion on the accrual dates. She concluded that the bank was entitled to summary judgment. The judgment does not state the exact amount of the judgment order.