The High Court has ordered possession of 13 residential investment properties mortgaged to AIB Mortgage Bank, to allow the bank to exercise its power of sale. Mr Justice Keane made the order on 21 April 2015 after refusing the defendant’s request for a plenary hearing.
The bank brought the case by special summons in October 2011. It said the defendant had defaulted on loans used to acquire the properties and that the mortgage terms entitled it to possession so it could sell them and recover the debt. The judgment records that affidavits and mortgage documents were submitted in support of the application, including evidence about service of the summons.
The bank also relied on earlier summary judgments made in December 2009. The amount of its judgment was later amended from €4,791,008.86 to €4,778,431.76 after the bank identified interest-calculation errors. The defendant had a pending appeal limited to the amount of the judgment. A separate judgment in favour of Allied Irish Banks plc was unaffected by those errors and was not under appeal.
The defendant, representing himself, disputed liability and the amount owed. Among other arguments, he said some loans and properties belonged to Kirefield Limited, alleged a conspiracy involving the bank and his former solicitors, challenged the name used in the proceedings and raised concerns about the loan and mortgage documents and the bank’s identity as lender. He also disputed the balance, citing further alleged interest errors and repayments he said had not been credited.
Justice Keane held that he could not reconsider liability, which had already been determined, or the amount of the debt, which was before the appellate court. He said the defendant had provided no evidence that the disputed amount was a significant part of the amended judgment. The judgment does not determine the appeal or state its eventual outcome.
The judge also refused the defendant’s application to have the case heard by plenary trial. He found no material dispute of fact that needed to be resolved to decide the possession application, and described the request as dilatory and misconceived. He concluded that the bank’s proofs were in order and that the defendant had not established a valid defence. The court ordered possession of the properties and said it would hear the parties on any appropriate ancillary or consequential orders.