Judgment: 2018-12-12 · Court archive

High Court awards AIB €229,846.19 judgment against James O’Brien

The court rejected the borrower’s limitation, acceleration and missing-terms defences and found no reason to send the claim to a plenary hearing.

High Court · [2018] IEHC 776

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Allied Irish Banks plc (Plaintiff)
  • James O’Brien
  • Robert Eagar (Judge)
What

The court rejected the borrower’s limitation, acceleration and missing-terms defences and found no reason to send the claim to a plenary hearing.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Property owned by the defendant
When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 28 May 2003; 5 May 2011

    The first facility was for €47,000, advanced on 28 May 2003. The judgment says it was secured against property owned by the defendant and an assignment of an Ark Life PIP investment fund. The second facility, for €110,000, was agreed in September 2010 and was due to be repaid in full by 5 May 2011. It was secured against property owned by the defendant.

  • 4 January 2011; 28 July 2011

    The bank relied on account records showing payments into the accounts in 2011. Its supplemental affidavit stated that payments on one account continued through 4 January 2011 and on the other through 28 July 2011. The judge noted repayments on the first account in June, July and August 2011, and a payment of €2,124.12 on the second account on 28 July 2011. The bank argued these payments acknowledged the debt and meant the claims were not time barred.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge found that the claims were not statute barred, that the defendant’s obligations had not been accelerated, and that the bank had remedied the missing-terms issue by exhibiting the conditions in its supplemental affidavit. He concluded that the defendant had not shown a defence requiring the proceedings to go to a plenary hearing and entered judgment for the bank in the amount of €229,846.19. The judgment does not state any further order or award of costs.

The High Court has given Allied Irish Banks plc judgment for €229,846.19 against James O’Brien over two loan facilities, ruling that he had not established a defence requiring a plenary hearing.

Mr Justice Robert Eagar delivered the judgment on 12 December 2018 on the bank’s motion for summary judgment. The defendant argued that the claims were statute barred, that longstanding defaults had accelerated his repayment obligations, and that the bank had not produced the applicable loan terms and conditions.

The first facility was for €47,000, advanced on 28 May 2003. The judgment says it was secured against property owned by the defendant and an assignment of an Ark Life PIP investment fund. The second facility, for €110,000, was agreed in September 2010 and was due to be repaid in full by 5 May 2011. It was secured against property owned by the defendant.

The bank relied on account records showing payments into the accounts in 2011. Its supplemental affidavit stated that payments on one account continued through 4 January 2011 and on the other through 28 July 2011. The judge noted repayments on the first account in June, July and August 2011, and a payment of €2,124.12 on the second account on 28 July 2011. The bank argued these payments acknowledged the debt and meant the claims were not time barred.

On acceleration, the bank’s evidence was that no letters of demand had issued to make the full debts due. The supplemental affidavit also included the terms and conditions for both accounts, addressing the defendant’s complaint that they had not been exhibited with the summary judgment application.

The judge found that the claims were not statute barred, that the defendant’s obligations had not been accelerated, and that the bank had remedied the missing-terms issue by exhibiting the conditions in its supplemental affidavit. He concluded that the defendant had not shown a defence requiring the proceedings to go to a plenary hearing and entered judgment for the bank in the amount of €229,846.19. The judgment does not state any further order or award of costs.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review