The High Court has entered judgment for the outstanding balance of Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited’s claim against Patrick Halpin, rejecting a challenge to a demand made under guarantees for Crossplan Investments Limited’s borrowings.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Cooke on 7 November 2013, records that the bank originally sought €25,560,423.26 in principal and interest. In October 2012, Mr Justice Kelly granted judgment for €20 million, finding that the only triable issue was the alleged overcharging of the remaining balance. That balance was sent to a plenary hearing.
At the start of the hearing on 29 October 2013, the defence withdrew the overcharging allegation. It instead argued that no valid demand had been made under the guarantees because the person who signed the demand letter, Mary Kelly, was not an “Officer” of Irish Nationwide Building Society (INBS), as the guarantees required.
The bank objected that the new ground was outside the scope of the issue remitted for trial. The court agreed. It held that the 2012 decision had expressly found no triable defence to the €20 million judgment other than overcharging. Allowing a challenge to the guarantees at this stage would conflict with that decision and reopen an issue that could have been raised earlier, the court said.
The court also considered the challenge on its merits. Ms Kelly testified that she was a case manager handling borrower accounts and had been authorised by the bank’s Credit Committee, alongside another case manager, to sign and deliver the demand. No evidence was called for Mr Halpin.
The guarantee rules defined an “officer” to include senior management, officials and executives. The court held that Ms Kelly, as a manager authorised to make the formal demand, fell within that definition. It also found that the 2011 transfer of INBS’s assets and liabilities to the plaintiff meant references to an INBS officer in the guarantees applied to an officer or employee of the plaintiff.
The court concluded that the new ground could not succeed and ordered judgment for the outstanding balance. The judgment does not state the amount of that balance. The earlier €20 million judgment remained in place; this decision resolved the balance that had been remitted for plenary hearing.