The High Court has granted Ulster Bank Ireland Limited summary judgment against Anthony Deane and Sean Deane for €19,876,130.55, after finding that their affidavits disclosed no arguable defence to the bank’s claim.
In a judgment delivered on 20 June 2012, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern dealt with the two cases together because they involved similar claims. The applications were for summary judgment. The parties did not dispute the figures claimed.
The bank’s claim arose from two facility letters dated 12 September 2008 and a guarantee dated 2 December 2008. The judge said the guarantee provided that each brother guaranteed the other’s present and future liabilities to the bank. On their face, the facility letters provided for demand loans.
The brothers argued that the loans were long-term and were to be repaid from property sales, including sales of homes at Stocking Lane in Dublin. Anthony Deane’s affidavit recounted statements he said bank representatives had made before he signed the facility letters. The judge noted that the defendants produced no written document supporting their claim that the loans were not repayable on demand.
The judge held that the alleged oral statements could not be used to contradict the clear written terms of the facility letters, applying the parol evidence rule. He also rejected the claimed collateral agreement. Bank representatives had filed affidavits denying that such an agreement existed, and the defendants had produced no written terms or other facts that, in the judge’s assessment, came close to establishing one.
The court accepted that the parties may have understood the bank would be repaid as homes were sold, but found that this was an aspiration rather than a legal obligation. It distinguished the defendants’ loans from a separate €40.5 million demand facility made to Deane Homes Ltd for the Stocking Lane project, which was not part of the bank’s claim in these proceedings.
The court concluded that the first defence was inadmissible and the second was unsupported by credible evidence. It held that the affidavits failed to disclose an arguable defence and ruled that the bank was entitled to summary judgment in both cases. The judgment does not state the separate amount awarded against each defendant.