Judgment: 2017-06-28 · Court archive

High Court grants Bank of Ireland judgment for €93,008.52, stays execution for nine months

The court allowed the bank to enter judgment against James and Sharon Miller over a 2006 loan, while temporarily staying enforcement as the defendants pursued separate proceedings.

High Court · [2017] IEHC 622

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank (Plaintiff)
  • Sharon Miller (Defendant)
  • Ms Justice Faherty
What

The court allowed the bank to enter judgment against James and Sharon Miller over a 2006 loan, while temporarily staying enforcement as the defendants pursued separate proceedings.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • 125 Corish Park, Wexford
  • Wexford
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The judge found that the alleged advisory relationship and advice about buying 125 Corish Park could amount to an arguable cross-claim arising from the same facts as the loan claim. She also considered a claimed loss connected to the property’s sale. However, the mortgage terms barred the defendants from relying on a legal or equitable set-off, so those matters did not prevent judgment in the summary proceedings. The court found the other defences advanced—including excessive charges, an alleged revised repayment arrangement, lack of independent legal advice and the claimed invalid receiver appointment—did not meet the threshold for sending the loan claim to a plenary hearing.

The High Court granted Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank leave to enter judgment against James and Sharon Miller for €93,008.52, the residual balance claimed on a loan used to buy a Wexford property. It stayed execution for nine months to allow the Millers to advance separate proceedings against the bank concerning their dealings over the property.

Ms Justice Faherty delivered the judgment on 28 June 2017. The bank said it had offered the Millers a €165,000 loan in February 2006 to buy 125 Corish Park, Wexford. The funds were drawn down and secured by a mortgage and charge. The defendants did not dispute receiving the money, agreeing to repay it or defaulting on the loan. The bank said it realised the security through a sale and sought the remaining balance.

The Millers argued that a bank business manager had advised them to buy the property and that his advice formed part of a wider course of lending and business advice that caused them loss. They also alleged that the receiver’s appointment was invalid and that the property was sold below value after a higher offer was ignored. The bank disputed those allegations. It said the property’s fair market value had been assessed at €65,276.68, the purchaser paid €59,540, and the difference was credited to the loan account. The court did not determine the merits of the Millers’ separate claims against the bank or receiver.

The judge found that the alleged advisory relationship and advice about buying 125 Corish Park could amount to an arguable cross-claim arising from the same facts as the loan claim. She also considered a claimed loss connected to the property’s sale. However, the mortgage terms barred the defendants from relying on a legal or equitable set-off, so those matters did not prevent judgment in the summary proceedings. The court found the other defences advanced—including excessive charges, an alleged revised repayment arrangement, lack of independent legal advice and the claimed invalid receiver appointment—did not meet the threshold for sending the loan claim to a plenary hearing.

The judgment is for €93,008.52, to be updated by agreement or by affidavit to establish the amount due as of the judgment date. Execution is stayed for nine months. The court said it would hear from the parties about when to list the matter again and whether any extension of the stay would be appropriate, depending on progress in the Millers’ separate litigation.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review