The High Court has entered summary judgment for National Asset Loan Management Limited (NALM) against property developer Cyril Barden, ordering payment of €10,167,801.68 in a dispute over loans for a property development in Co Wexford.
Mr Justice Charleton delivered the judgment in the Commercial list. He said NALM had sought €10,072,856 in the summary proceedings. The amount ordered was the figure outstanding “as of today”, according to the judgment. Costs were awarded to NALM, subject to a stay on both judgment and costs if a notice of appeal was entered within the time set by court rules. The stay would then continue until 4 June 2013; any extension would require an order from the Supreme Court.
The claim concerned three loans advanced to Mr Barden and three others: two Bank of Ireland facilities and one Allied Irish Banks (AIB) facility. The AIB facility, dated 5 February 2007, was for €8.95 million and related to a planned development of 258 homes at Belmont Park, Ferrybank, Co Wexford. The judgment said 57 houses were built, 22 were sold before a receiver was appointed and three more were later sold by the receiver.
Mr Barden argued that the loan terms meant repayment was tied to sales of the homes, and that the bank had not carried out a required review by February 2008. He said more than €50,000 per sale had been applied to reduce the debt and that €2.199 million had been remitted to AIB before the receiver’s appointment. The judge concluded that the facility was repayable on demand and that the proposed interpretation would turn the lender-borrower relationship into a substantially different arrangement. He also rejected the challenge to the receiver’s appointment under the mortgage deed.
Mr Barden also argued that NALM’s acquisition of the loans was unlawful, citing fair procedures, valuation and statutory requirements. Justice Charleton held that the challenge to NALM’s statutory powers could not be raised as a defence in these summary proceedings and, in any event, was brought outside the applicable time limit. He said no substantial reasons had been shown for the delay.
The court’s decision determined whether the debt could be recovered through summary judgment. The judgment did not remit the case to a plenary hearing; it ordered judgment for the amount then outstanding.