The High Court granted Danske Bank A/S trading as Danske Bank summary judgment for €253,959.68 against Michael and Maureen Higgins over a loan facility the bank said they had failed to repay. Mr Justice McDermott delivered judgment on 5 June 2015.
The bank sought judgment under a facility letter dated 14 November 2012, accepted by the defendants on 25 November. The judgment records that the bank issued demand letters in October 2013, then brought a summary summons in November. The defendants argued that they had a bona fide defence and that the dispute should proceed to a plenary hearing.
Their first proposed defence concerned the meaning of the 2012 facility. The bank said it was repayable in full after six months. The defendants said it was intended as a temporary payment moratorium, with monthly payments of €2,000 and a review after six months, while their longer-term home loan continued. The judge found no credible evidence that they misunderstood the general character or effect of the signed facility letter. He also found that, even on their interpretation, the bank was not required to review the arrangement if they had not met the monthly payments. The defendants acknowledged missing three payments. The court found that the six-month period had expired and the bank was entitled to demand the full amount.
The defendants also argued that the bank had breached the Central Bank’s Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears. The judge distinguished this claim from possession proceedings: the bank was seeking a money judgment, not repossession of the family home. Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in *Irish Life and Permanent PLC v Dunne and Dunphy*, he concluded that the Code did not prevent the bank from seeking judgment for the debt in these proceedings, including on the basis of alleged non-compliance with provisions other than the repossession moratorium.
The third proposed defence relied on sections 30 and 54 of the Consumer Credit Act 1995. The judge held those provisions did not apply to the facility, whether considered a home loan or a business loan. He noted that the facility letter described its purpose as wholly business-related, an assertion the defendants disputed.
The court concluded that none of the three grounds raised an arguable defence and entered judgment for the bank in the amount claimed. The judgment concerned recovery of money under the loan facility; it was not an order for possession of the home or farmland.