The High Court has allowed Peter Lavelle to defend most of Stapleford Finance Limited’s claim for about €5.8 million arising from seven loans, while rejecting his arguments that the proceedings were statute barred and that the company had failed to prove its assignment of the debt.
In a judgment delivered on 6 July 2016, Ms Justice Baker said Lavelle had raised an arguable defence that he was a consumer for the purposes of consumer credit legislation and that the loan documents may not have met statutory requirements. She did not decide whether he was a consumer or whether the alleged compliance failures occurred. Those issues were not suitable for resolution on the summary judgment motion.
The loans were advanced by Anglo Irish Bank between June 2006 and December 2007 to fund investments, including in property-related funds and other investment instruments. Lavelle said he borrowed for personal and family financial security, rather than as part of a business in which he managed or selected investments. The court found that his evidence raised a genuine issue about the purpose of the borrowing. It also noted that the first two loans used documentation referring to the Consumer Credit Act, while later facilities included certificates stating that he was not a consumer. The judge said neither form of characterisation settled the question.
Baker rejected the argument that Stapleford’s substitution for Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC) created a new cause of action after the limitation period. She held that the statutory transfer carried the existing proceedings and their associated rights and obligations, so Stapleford took the case as IBRC had held it. The judgment also records that the loan sale agreement identified Lavelle’s accounts and that a deed of transfer was executed on 23 May 2014. The judge was satisfied with the evidence of assignment.
The court also left the amount claimed unresolved. Lavelle disputed aspects of the interest and account calculations. Stapleford had reduced its claim by €120,000, including a €20,000 adjustment concerning a disputed credit. Baker said the calculations could change during the delay caused by allowing a defence and did not determine the quantum dispute on the motion.
The order permits Lavelle to defend the claim except on limitation and proof of assignment. It is not a final decision on the debt, consumer status, compliance with consumer credit rules or the final amount payable.