The High Court has dismissed an application by Promontoria (Aran) Limited and two receivers seeking judgment on a loan and orders concerning rent from properties at 20 William Street and 25 Mainguard Street in Galway. The underlying proceedings will continue to a plenary hearing; the court did not decide the parties’ ultimate rights to the debt or rental income.
The motion sought judgment against Laszlo Fried for CHF 6,117,076.80 and US$558.81, together with interest. The receivers also sought an account of rents allegedly received since their appointments in April 2013, directions for rent to be paid to them, and orders restraining interference with rent collection.
Promontoria said it had acquired the relevant loan facilities and security from Ulster Bank Ireland Limited in 2015. The plaintiffs argued that Fried’s loan was due and that the receivers should receive rent while the dispute over leases affecting the properties was resolved. Fried disputed the claim and the evidence supporting it. He said an agreement reached with the bank in 2012 restructured his and Jaszai Limited’s liabilities, and challenged whether the loan was repayable on demand, how the claimed balance was calculated, and the proof of the transfer to Promontoria. Those matters were disputed submissions, not findings made in this application.
Justice Mark Sanfey held that the court had an inherent jurisdiction to consider summary judgment in plenary proceedings, but declined to use it here. He found the evidence supporting the amount claimed inadequate and inadmissible for summary judgment. The Promontoria witness was not an employee or officer of Ulster Bank or Promontoria, and the account statements covered only the period after Promontoria acquired the loan, without explaining the earlier balance. The judge also said the case was not suitable for summary judgment after years of pleadings and a separate summary judgment motion concerning related claims.
The court also refused the requested rent orders. It was not clear on the material before it that the receivers were entitled to the rental income: they had not identified a provision in the charges giving them that right, and they had not sought possession of the properties. The judge did not determine whether the receivers were ultimately entitled to rent. He found they had not met the test for mandatory interim relief and also cited substantial, unexplained delay.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ application in full. It directed that the proceedings continue to a plenary hearing and allowed the parties 14 days to make written submissions about steps to progress the case to trial and the costs of the application.