The High Court has granted Allied Irish Banks plc and AIB Mortgage Bank summary judgment for €7.2 million against Peter Flanagan over four loan agreements. Mr Justice Hedigan delivered the judgment on 16 October 2015.
The banks’ application concerned loans which, the judgment records, were made to Mr Flanagan. The defendant accepted that the loans had been made and did not dispute the amount due as of December 2013. Demand had been made and not met. He sought leave to defend on three grounds.
First, he alleged that a bank official, Frank Furey, had been a “silent partner” in property investments in properties adjoining his restaurant in Malahide, and that this created a conflict of interest. The alleged partnership had ended in early 2008. The judge accepted the defendant’s account for the purpose of considering the application, but noted that the loans and properties were in Mr Flanagan’s name, and that he had not informed the bank of Mr Furey’s alleged role until February 2010. The bank then began disciplinary proceedings, which ended after Mr Furey became ill and left the bank. The court held that this ground did not provide a bona fide defence to repayment.
Second, Mr Flanagan alleged that he signed the 2008 and 2009 loan agreements under duress and without independent legal advice. The judge said the allegation was unsupported by evidence or detail. The loans restructured earlier lending, and the judgment records that Mr Flanagan had access to a solicitor during the dealings. The court found no bona fide defence on this ground.
Third, Mr Flanagan said a meeting in early December 2013 resulted in an agreement to “park permanently” the debts, effectively forgiving them. The judge described this as a bare assertion, unsupported by documents, correspondence or an affidavit from the adviser said to have attended. The court also noted later engagement between the parties about asset disposals and debt restructuring.
Applying the test for summary judgment, the judge concluded that none of the three proposed grounds showed an arguable defence. He ordered judgment for the plaintiffs in the amount claimed. The ruling was on the banks’ summary judgment application.