The High Court has given Stapleford Finance Limited liberty to enter final judgment against Peter Courtney for a loan balance, while staying enforcement on conditions tied to any proceedings he pursues against the bank.
Mr Justice Bernard Barton delivered the judgment on 14 October 2014. The case began as a summary debt claim by Irish Bank Resolution Corporation, which later assigned its interest to Stapleford Finance. The bank originally claimed €117,666.80 under two loan accounts. At the hearing, it said €123,709.59 was due in principal and interest. The court ordered judgment for the amount due, calculated at the bank’s rate up to the judgment date; the judgment does not state a final figure.
Courtney accepted that he signed the facility letters and pledge, drew down the loans and could not keep up payments. He did not dispute the bank’s calculation of the debt or its contractual right to sell the pledged shares. He argued, however, that the bank’s conduct and the timing of the share sale had caused losses. Among other allegations, he said the bank’s lending and market conduct contributed to losses in his investments, and that it sold the portfolio at a poor time. Those allegations were not determined at this hearing.
The judge rejected several arguments as defences to the debt claim. He held that the bank could use the summary summons procedure, that evidence from a bank employee based on bank records was admissible in these circumstances, and that alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection Code did not make the loan unenforceable. He also held that the bank was entitled under the pledge to sell the shares and was not required to wait for the market to improve.
The court treated Courtney’s potential claims about the bank’s conduct and the portfolio sale as independent claims, rather than a defence or set-off against the loan debt. The loan terms required repayment without set-off or counterclaim. The judge did not decide whether Courtney could ultimately establish those claims, observing that relevant facts might emerge through procedures such as discovery.
In the court’s view, the possibility of claims against the bank justified a stay on execution of the judgment in the interests of justice. The stay is conditional on Courtney prosecuting any counterclaim or separate proceedings against the bank with due diligence under the court rules. Either party may apply to the court about the stay, which is to remain in place pending the outcome of those proceedings.