The High Court has refused Danske Bank A/S’s application to enforce a solicitor’s undertaking over land in County Kerry, finding that the bank’s lengthy unexplained delay and incomplete evidence made this an unsuitable case for the court’s summary jurisdiction.
In a judgment delivered on 11 December 2018, Mr Justice Allen said the defendant solicitor had failed to comply with an undertaking given in February 2007. The undertaking concerned security for a loan to Maurice Prendiville and covered land at Moanmore and a separate 60-acre site at Castleisland.
The Moanmore land was registered in the joint names of Prendiville and his solicitor, Marie Dennehy, although it should not have been. A charge was later registered in the bank’s favour. The judge said the bank had an equitable charge over the 6.5 acres it was meant to secure, but not the enforceable first legal charge promised. He also found that the mortgage deed had been backdated, though he was not satisfied that this made it unenforceable.
Dennehy had sent the bank an executed deed of confirmation and a transfer of her interest in 2011. The bank did not issue its special summons until August 2016, more than five years after that communication. The court found no explanation for the delay, no letter before action, and no evidence that the bank had tried to enforce the security over the Moanmore land. The bank had also not disclosed key details, including when the loan was drawn down, the outstanding balance, or how much it received from the sale of the Castleisland land.
The transfer of Dennehy’s interest could not be registered without Prendiville’s execution, and further title issues remained. The judge said it was not appropriate to order the defendant to achieve steps outside his immediate control. He also found that the bank had not set out a clear basis or amount for compensation. Assessing any loss would require considering what the bank could have realised from the security and what it actually held, and could not be resolved through this summary application.
The court refused the application. It did not determine the amount of any loss or make a compensation award.