The High Court has awarded Allied Irish Banks plc final judgment of €3,500,441.41 against Eugene Norton and €3,324,933.34 against Grace Norton over three loan facilities. The court rejected their request to send the dispute to a plenary hearing, finding they had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of a bona fide defence. It said it would hear submissions on a stay.
Ms Justice Faherty delivered judgment on 23 October 2018 in proceedings brought by summary summons issued on 12 August 2015. The bank said the loans were secured on properties and that repayment had been demanded on 8 November 2010. The defendants did not dispute that they had benefited from the advances, but challenged the claim on four grounds.
They argued that the claims were out of time, that the bank had agreed to provide further development finance, that some loans had been transferred within the AIB group without notice, and that interest had been overcharged or should have been calculated at a tracker or reduced rate.
On limitation, Justice Faherty held that the loans were secured on property and came within the 12-year period in section 36(1)(a) of the Statute of Limitations 1957. She also found the claims were in time under the six-year period: the March 2009 letter relied on by the defendants concerned a separate Waterford Road facility, while repayment of the three loans in these proceedings had been demanded in November 2010. The proceedings were issued less than five years later. The judge also noted the first defendant’s letters of October 2010 and April 2011 acknowledging efforts to repay borrowing.
The defendants said the bank had promised construction funding for developments at Waterford Road and Mulhalls, on Pudding Lane in Kilkenny. Justice Faherty found that the same issue had been decided in earlier possession proceedings, in which Mr Justice Binchy found no evidence of a binding commitment to provide that funding. The defendants had not appealed. The judge held that issue estoppel applied and, in any event, the documents cited did not establish an agreement.
The court found the assignment and interest arguments unsupported by specific evidence. The first defendant had identified no factual basis for the alleged transfers, and gave no calculations or contractual basis for a tracker rate. The facility letters set interest at the variable prime rate plus 1.5% per year, the judge said.
The court entered final judgment for the bank in the stated amounts. The judgment records no decision on a stay; the judge said she would hear submissions on that issue.