The High Court has concluded that Promontoria (Finn) Limited is entitled to summary judgment against Herbert Boyle and Paul Kelly on two loan facilities, but has not yet decided how much, if any, of a separate overdraft claim can be awarded as principal.
Mr Justice Twomey delivered the judgment on 20 March 2019 in the Commercial list. The case concerns loans originally made by Ulster Bank Ireland Limited and Ulster Bank Limited for the defendants’ purchase of 45 apartments above the Malmaison Hotel in Liverpool. The judgment says the defendants did not dispute signing the facility letter, receiving the loans or failing to repay them.
Promontoria sought judgment for £3,268,428.44, stated to be due on 29 June 2018. The High Court rejected the defendants’ arguments that Promontoria had not established title to the loans, that evidence supporting the application was inadmissible hearsay, and that the claims were statute-barred. It also rejected their arguments concerning an alleged understanding that the secured apartments would be sold before personal claims were pursued, rent held in escrow, account entries, and an interest roll-up account.
The court found no fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence to the claims for Facility B, Facility C and interest from Facility B held in the interest roll-up account. The amounts stated as due for those items were £584,587.43, £2,457,448.13 and £177,101 respectively. The judgment says the court would hear from counsel about the precise terms of the order. It does not set out a final order in those terms.
Facility A was an overdraft of £49,291.88 as of 29 June 2018. Although it was due in 2011 and the proceedings issued in 2018, the court held that the 12-year limitation period for principal secured by a charge on land could apply. But the evidence did not make clear what part of the amount claimed was principal. The judge therefore did not grant summary judgment on Facility A at that stage and proposed discussing whether the parties wished to provide further evidence on that issue. The judgment does not record the result of that discussion or the eventual order on Facility A.