Judgment: 2025-05-29 · Court archive

High Court refuses summary judgment in €660,000 loan case over gaps in transfer evidence

High Court · [2025] IEHC 315

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Fitzwilliam Loan Management Unlimited Company (Plaintiff)
  • Albert Conneally (Defendant)
  • Bank of Scotland Ireland
  • Bank of Scotland plc
  • Ennis Property Finance
  • GDP Capital Real Estate Ltd
What

High Court refuses summary judgment in €660,000 loan case over gaps in transfer evidence

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • High Court
  • Ireland
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Mr Justice Mark Heslin held that Fitzwilliam had not produced sufficient prima facie evidence of the entire chain of title to justify that result.

The High Court has refused to enter summary judgment for €660,409.77 against Albert Conneally in a loan recovery action and has directed that the dispute proceed to a full hearing.

Fitzwilliam Loan Management Unlimited Company says it is the ultimate successor to Bank of Scotland Ireland, which advanced Conneally and a co-borrower a €480,000 interest-only loan in 2008. The lender says the debt subsequently passed through Bank of Scotland plc, Ennis Property Finance DAC and GDP Capital Real Estate Ltd before being assigned to Fitzwilliam in November 2022.

The proceedings were originally issued by GDP in October 2020. Fitzwilliam was later substituted as plaintiff and sought summary judgment, a procedure allowing judgment without a full trial where no real defence is shown.

Mr Justice Mark Heslin held that Fitzwilliam had not produced sufficient prima facie evidence of the entire chain of title to justify that result.

The particular difficulty concerned the alleged transfer from Bank of Scotland to Ennis. Fitzwilliam relied on an affidavit saying that transfer occurred under a November 2015 deed, but did not exhibit that deed. Another document referred instead to a July 2015 loan purchase deed, which was also not produced. Evidence of written notification to Conneally about that transfer was also absent.

The court stressed that this did not mean the transfer was invalid. It meant only that the evidence was insufficient for final judgment without a trial.

Further issues also required fuller consideration. Conneally raised questions about GDP's status as an authorised credit servicing firm when it commenced proceedings, while correspondence from Pepper Finance had for several years told him that Pepper owned the same loan. Pepper later said those letters had been issued in error.

The court also expressed concerns about whether Fitzwilliam's compiled spreadsheet adequately proved the amount claimed.

The case was therefore adjourned to plenary hearing. Costs of the summary judgment motion were provisionally made costs in the cause.

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