The High Court has granted the administratrix of Philip De Vere Hunt’s estate leave to plead that a mistake affected the terms of loans at the centre of a €31 million claim by National Asset Loan Management Limited (NALM). The court did not decide whether the alleged mistake occurred or whether the estate’s defence will succeed.
NALM alleges that Hunt and Pat Moloughney borrowed about €30 million from Allied Irish Banks (AIB) under a 2010 loan agreement, failed to meet its terms and did not repay the funds. NALM says it acquired AIB’s rights and obligations under the agreement. The defendants maintained that the facilities were limited to specified securities and did not create personal liability beyond those assets.
The application concerned which pleas could be included in a proposed defence and counterclaim under the National Asset Management Agency Act 2009. Justice Cregan said the mistake plea was supported by affidavit evidence and documents, including a letter dated 19 December 2007 that Moloughney said he handed to an AIB lending manager. The letter referred to personal guarantees being limited to the partnership’s securities. The plaintiff said it had no record or memory of receiving it. The judge said the dispute was for trial, not resolution on this application.
The court held that a plea of mistake was distinct from a claim that AIB made a representation or gave an undertaking, and was not barred by the provisions of the Act considered in the judgment. It found the proposed plea raised a substantial issue, that there were substantial reasons for the delay in seeking leave, and that granting leave was just and equitable. It also found damages would not be an adequate remedy if the estate were prevented from pursuing the claim. Leave was granted for the mistake plea and the related estoppel plea.
The court refused leave for the estate to pursue against NALM a breach of contract claim attributed to AIB, or a claim that AIB had misrepresented the loan terms. The judge said those claims, if pursued, should be brought against AIB directly. The ruling did not determine whether either claim would succeed.
Other proposed claims did not require leave under the court’s analysis: alleged misrepresentation by NALM itself, estoppel, laches and delay claims against NALM, and challenges to the constitutionality of certain provisions of the 2009 Act. The judgment addressed permission to plead those matters; it did not decide their merits.