The High Court has granted Promontoria (GEM) DAC summary judgment for €3.896 million against four defendants over a loan used to build 16 apartments at Mill Race, Bunclody, Co Wexford.
Mr Justice Twomey’s ruling followed an application seeking €4,572,662.91. The court ordered judgment for the principal sum of €3,896,000. The judgment says two defendants, Peter Crean and Clody Norton, contested the proceedings. Neither disputed that the money had been borrowed or that it had not been repaid.
Crean, a solicitor involved in the proposed development, argued that the matter should proceed to a full hearing because he said he had reached a binding settlement with Promontoria in February 2018 for €80,000. Norton relied on that claimed settlement, arguing that the amount, if any, payable by Crean could affect the claim against her.
The judge found that the affidavit evidence did not provide a credible defence based on a settlement. Promontoria’s loan administrator, Link ASI, had said it lacked authority to bind the lender, and correspondence described any proposed deal as subject to contract and further legal documentation. The court also noted inconsistencies in Crean’s account of an earlier €70,000 offer and found that any agreement in principle would not be binding before Promontoria signed the legal documents.
The court also rejected Crean’s other arguments as grounds to send the case to a full hearing. It found the claim was not statute-barred because the facility was repayable on demand and the demand was made in June 2017. It concluded that the bank had waived a requirement to obtain a property valuation by proceeding with the loan, and that alleged breaches of the Central Bank’s SME lending code did not provide a defence to repayment. The court also accepted that the loan had been assigned to Promontoria.
On interest, Promontoria had dropped its claim relating to a second account, reducing its demand by €13,551.29. The judge found no credible challenge to interest on the main account, but said the appropriate order in the circumstances was judgment for the principal alone. The ruling did not resolve the affidavit evidence as if after a full trial; it decided whether the defendants had a credible defence to summary judgment.