The High Court has ruled that the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland is entitled to judgment for an amount due on two loan accounts, but left the precise sum for a further hearing. It also allowed the defendant to pursue a counterclaim alleging negligent misrepresentation, which may affect any amount ultimately payable.
In a judgment delivered on 20 May 2019, Mr Justice Meenan considered the bank’s motion for liberty to enter final judgment for £248,520.75, or its euro equivalent. The claim arose from two loan accounts. The judge said he would hear counsel on the precise amount and on directions for pleadings.
The defendant’s affidavit described his involvement with Investrade Limited, a company set up to buy the upper floor of Halifax House on Fenwick Street in Liverpool and develop it into apartments. The company borrowed about £3 million from the bank. After problems at the building and the sale and rental of some apartments, four units remained vacant.
The defendant said a bank official, Pat Flynn, contacted him about buying those four apartments. He alleged the bank failed to act in good faith and that he relied on its advice to make the purchase. He argued that the advice amounted to negligent misrepresentation. The bank’s evidence, including an affidavit from Flynn, disputed his account: Flynn said the defendant and co-investors sought individual loan facilities, which were drawn down in May 2008, and that he had not advised the defendant on his financial affairs.
The judge rejected the defendant’s contention that the money had not been drawn down or that the loan accounts were not the relevant ones. Based on the documents exhibited by the bank, he found the amounts claimed related to advances that had been drawn down and not repaid. The defendant had not established bona fide grounds to defend that part of the claim.
However, the judge said he could not resolve the conflict between the defendant’s and Flynn’s affidavits on the alleged negligent misrepresentation at a summary judgment hearing. He allowed that claim to proceed as a counterclaim. Depending on its outcome, the defendant may be able to set off any award against the sum owed to the bank. The court did not determine the counterclaim or specify the final judgment amount in this ruling.