The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks (AIB) summary judgment in three sets of loan proceedings, while allowing George Tracey to defend a €800,000 claim concerning proceeds from an Asian investment fund. The judge made no final finding on that fund dispute and said he would hear counsel on the form of the orders and any consequential relief.
In the first case, AIB sought judgment against Mr Tracey for euro and sterling loan balances. He did not dispute the loans, their terms or the amounts due, but relied on claims about the bank’s handling of business accounts and property loans. Mr Justice Hogan found those claims generally too late, vague or insufficiently connected to a defence against repayment. He allowed Mr Tracey to defend the claim that about €800,000 in proceeds from a matured Asian investment fund had been retained by NAMA and not applied to reduce loans secured on Mearescourt House.
The judgment states that the bank’s euro claim was reduced by €800,000, leaving summary judgment for €11,931,306. It also records a sterling judgment, but gives two different amounts: £1,006,747 in paragraph 25 and £1,006,474 in the conclusions. The source does not reconcile that discrepancy.
In the second case, AIB Mortgage Bank sought €3,364,961 plus accrued interest from Mr and Ms Tracey under a mortgage facility for a Foxrock home. Ms Tracey argued that the bank knew she had no independent income and relied on her husband to make the payments. The court found that she had signed the loan documents and declarations, and that the bank was entitled to assume she had legal advice. It ruled that the circumstances she raised did not release her from liability to the bank. The judge ordered judgment against both defendants jointly and severally for €3,364,961; the stated order does not include the accrued interest mentioned in the claim.
In the third case, AIB Mortgage Bank sought €1,438,814 from Mr Tracey under four property-related loan facilities. The judge said his arguments were substantially the same as those rejected in the first case and granted summary judgment for that amount.
The three proceedings were heard together. The judgment concerns the banks’ entitlement to recover on the loans; it says it does not determine the separate rights between the spouses over the Foxrock property. The judge directed counsel to address the form of orders and any consequential relief.