The High Court dismissed a lender’s claim for repayment of a loan secured against land in Co Cavan, ruling that the evidence did not establish that proceedings were brought within the applicable limitation period.
Home Funding Corporation Limited, which the court was told is now Elstree Mortgages Limited, sought €965,641.21 in capital and interest from Nigel Bannon over a loan of IR£15,000 said to have been advanced in 1999. The claim was denied. The lender also sought orders relating to a mortgage and the transfer of the land to Mark Bannon, along with possession and other relief.
The mortgage was not registered as a burden on the folio. The lender relied on a copy transfer of charge which the court found incomplete on its face: it left blank the date of the charge. No evidence was provided that the transfer had been registered, that registration had been attempted, or that the transfer had been notified to Nigel Bannon. The court also noted unresolved questions about the role, if any, of Wise Finance Company (Ireland) Limited in the transaction.
The lender’s account printout said payments stopped on 26 April 2002. Its witnesses could not establish the loan’s initial advance or verify the account records. The judge was not satisfied with the account’s provenance or accuracy, and found Ian Andrews, previously known as Ian Leaf, not to be a reliable witness. The court said proof of the account was critical because the alleged final payment date affected whether the claim was time-barred.
Nigel Bannon denied receiving the loan. He accepted signing the application form but disputed signing other documents, including the customer care booklet and commitment letter. Mark Bannon said he knew nothing of the alleged loan and described his use of the land, which he said he needed to access another folio where he was building a house. These were the defendants’ evidence; the court’s decision turned on the limitation issue.
The lender argued that a 12-year limitation period ran from the last payment it alleged was made in April 2002, and that issuing proceedings on 16 December 2013 stopped the period running in time. The judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the final payment was made on that date, and therefore was not satisfied that the proceedings were issued within the applicable period.
The court treated the limitation period as dispositive and dismissed the plaintiff’s claim. It did not grant the requested mortgage, possession or other ancillary relief.