The High Court has granted Bank of Ireland (UK) plc summary judgment against Simon Corcoran for €257,039.39, together with continuing interest, over a loan used to buy shares in a German property fund. Mr Justice Meenan ruled on 20 December 2017 that the defendant had not shown a real or bona fide defence requiring a plenary hearing.
The claim arose from a facility letter dated 16 October 2007. The loan was for up to €250,000 to assist with the purchase of shares in Custom House Capital Munich Parkstadt Property; the facility also included a €2,500 arrangement fee. The bank said the loan became repayable after a 2013 notice of breach. The facility incorporated general lending terms allowing the bank to demand repayment in specified circumstances.
The case reached the High Court through appeals concerning decisions by the Master of the High Court. In February 2017, the Master dismissed the bank’s motion for liberty to enter final judgment because a supporting affidavit did not state the address where it was sworn. The judge accepted that affidavit under the court rules after hearing that the address was the same as the solicitor’s address recorded in the jurat. He also found that a later affidavit corrected an error about the deponent’s job title and authority.
The defendant argued that the plaintiff had not shown it was entitled to enforce the loan, which had originally been made by the Bank of Ireland. The judge found that a 2010 order of the High Court of Justice in England and Wales transferred the relevant business to the plaintiff, including the loan, and that the plaintiff had standing to sue.
The defendant also said the loan was intended to be non-recourse, relying on the share purchase and the shares pledged as security. The judge found no supporting evidence of an agreement or representation that the borrower would have no personal liability. He concluded that the facility’s incorporated repayment terms applied.
A proposed 2013 restructuring and the defendant’s suspicions about the bank’s motives did not, in the judge’s view, establish a credible basis for a defence. He said complaints about redacted information supplied under data-protection law had a separate process. The judge also rejected the jurisdiction challenge, noting that the defendant lived in Ireland, had entered an unconditional appearance and had not established a defence based on the English governing law.
Having found no real or bona fide defence, the court granted summary judgment for the amount claimed with continuing interest. It held that discovery no longer arose and discharged the Master’s 16 February 2016 discovery order. The judgment does not state a separate interest rate or quantify interest accrued.