The High Court granted summary judgment to Start Mortgages Limited against Jeremiah O’Regan, finding that his evidence disclosed no arguable defence to the lender’s claim. The court did not decide whether to stay the order: it said it would hear the parties about the status of O’Regan’s complaints before making that decision.
Mr Justice Max Barrett’s judgment, delivered on 16 March 2017, concerns a €770,000 term loan offered in June 2006 and advanced around October that year. Start Mortgages said O’Regan had defaulted on repayments. It demanded €981,886.28 in July 2014 and claimed that sum, plus continuing interest. The judgment records that the claimed amount was due on the mortgage account as of 31 July 2014 and remained unpaid at the hearing.
O’Regan, who represented himself, objected to the application proceeding to judgment while complaints to the Financial Services Ombudsman and, apparently, the Central Bank remained unresolved. The court said those complaints did not prevent it from deciding whether the claim was suitable for summary proceedings and whether liability could be determined on the evidence before it.
The judge applied the established test for summary judgment, under which leave to defend should be granted unless it is very clear there is no defence, and an arguable defence is sufficient. He concluded that O’Regan had identified no specific grounds of defence. The judgment quoted his affidavit statement that the case raised “very many serious issues to be tried”, but found that more was required in response to the lender’s evidence. The court therefore granted the summary judgment sought.
The court said it could stay an order pending the resolution of legitimate complaints and allow either party to apply after those complaints were resolved. It also said a later Ombudsman determination suggesting the claim had been brought prematurely could be considered in relation to costs. The judgment cautioned that a stay could be refused or lifted if complaints were made merely to delay payment or could not affect liability. It left the stay question open and said the parties would be heard on the status of the investigations before that decision.