The High Court has found Allied Irish Banks plc entitled to summary judgment of €1,023,501.86 against James Kelly over two loans, rejecting his arguments that the bank’s documents were incomplete, that a settlement with a co-borrower discharged his liability, and that the claim was statute barred.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the judgment on 14 December 2018. The application concerned money the bank said was due under loan agreements dating from 2007 and 2008. The larger loan, for €700,000, was advanced to Kelly and Brendan Kelly to fund a public house and acquire or develop a site in Letterkenny, County Donegal. A second loan of €178,029.75 was advanced to James Kelly to clear an earlier loan.
The bank demanded repayment in November 2015: €789,444.59 plus interest on the first loan and €161,065.27 plus interest on the second. The judge also relied on a statement of affairs James Kelly provided to the bank in September 2016. It was sworn before a Commissioner for Oaths and recorded liabilities of €164,158.27 in his name and €801,170.45 owed by Brendan Kelly and James Kelly, with “J Kelly 50%” noted.
Kelly sought to have the summary judgment application sent to a plenary hearing, arguing he had a real or bona fide defence. The judge said the sworn statement was itself sufficient to satisfy the court that the bank was entitled to judgment, but also considered the defences. Applying the test in Aer Rianta CPT v Ryanair Ltd, he found the issues could be resolved on the summary judgment motion.
On the documents, the judge was satisfied the bank had exhibited the relevant loan agreements, statements and letters. He found concerns about loan security irrelevant to the claim before him.
Kelly argued that a settlement between the bank and Brendan Kelly, a co-borrower on the first loan, amounted to an accord and satisfaction under section 17 of the Civil Liability Act 1961. But the settlement expressly said it did not release, reduce or discharge James Kelly’s liability. The judge therefore found section 17 provided no defence.
On limitation, the judge held that the September 2016 statement of affairs acknowledged the debt for the purposes of sections 56 and 58 of the Statute of Limitations Act 1957. He concluded there was no limitation defence and that the bank was entitled to the sum sought. The judgment does not state a separate order’s terms or record an appeal.