The High Court has entered judgment for Bank of Scotland plc for €9,684,987.04 against Jerry Beades, finding that he had not demonstrated an arguable defence to the bank’s claim on four loan facilities.
Mr Justice Kelly delivered the judgment on 20 July 2012, following a summary judgment hearing on 6 July. The bank sought repayment of loans originally made by Bank of Scotland (Ireland) Ltd. The judgment said that the Irish bank’s assets and liabilities transferred to Bank of Scotland plc following a cross-border merger completed on 31 December 2010.
The facilities were issued between May 2005 and February 2008. The first was for up to €3.3 million to buy a site and house and cover related costs. A later facility made up to €7.75 million available for a development of 48 apartments at Richmond Avenue, Fairview. The judgment said that the loans went into arrears in April 2009. A demand letter dated 13 December 2011 sought €4,213,503.77 on the first loan and €5,471,483.27 on the second.
In his affidavit and submissions, Mr Beades alleged problems with loan drawdowns, a withheld payment of €32,460 and breaches of contract and a duty of care. He also challenged an affidavit filed for the bank, alleging that the solicitor who witnessed it was not authorised to do so. The bank produced Irish Law Society certificates showing that the solicitor held a practising certificate for 2012 and was in good standing. The judge rejected the allegations of wrongdoing against the bank’s witnesses and their law firm.
The judgment noted that Mr Beades did not deny signing the facility acceptances or receiving the loan money. The judge considered his allegations about drawdowns and contractual breaches unsupported by specific details or evidence. The court also found that a demand had been sent to his Richmond Avenue address and delivered; it said that service of the summary summons would in any event have been a sufficient demand.
The court concluded that Mr Beades had shown no triable issue or arguable case requiring the claim to proceed to trial. It entered judgment for the full amount claimed. The ruling concerned the bank’s summary judgment application; the judgment does not set out a separate order on any counterclaim.