Judgment: 2017-05-12 · Court archive

High Court grants AIB summary judgment in €1.47m loan dispute

The court rejected the borrowers’ arguments that they had a defence to the bank’s claims, but declined to stay judgment while a €57,857.67 interest overcharge claim is pursued.

The High Court · [2017] IEHC 363

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Allied Irish Banks plc (Plaintiff)
What

The court rejected the borrowers’ arguments that they had a defence to the bank’s claims, but declined to stay judgment while a €57,857.67 interest overcharge claim is pursued.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Other dates in the report
  • 31 December 2013

    The bank claimed €1,429,166.22 against the first defendant and €40,548.60 against both defendants jointly and severally. It also sought €1,387,003.82 and €40,000 from the second defendant under two guarantees. The court held that the facilities were repayable on demand and rejected the defendants’ argument that the reference to repayment or refinancing by 31 December 2013 required the bank to give them a reasonable opportunity to refinance.

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against two borrowers and on guarantees, after finding they had not shown a bona fide defence to the bank’s claims for loans that remained unpaid after expiring in December 2013.

The High Court granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against two borrowers and on guarantees, after finding they had not shown a bona fide defence to the bank’s claims for loans that remained unpaid after expiring in December 2013.

The judgment, delivered by Ms Justice Costello on 12 May 2017, followed an application for liberty to enter judgment. The defendants accepted that the May 2013 facilities refinanced earlier borrowing, that the facilities had expired and that the money had not been repaid.

The bank claimed €1,429,166.22 against the first defendant and €40,548.60 against both defendants jointly and severally. It also sought €1,387,003.82 and €40,000 from the second defendant under two guarantees. The court held that the facilities were repayable on demand and rejected the defendants’ argument that the reference to repayment or refinancing by 31 December 2013 required the bank to give them a reasonable opportunity to refinance.

The defendants also alleged improper treatment and motives by the bank, including in its handling of other lending and security. The judge found those claims unsupported by evidence that could establish a defence to these proceedings. Issues concerning the family home’s tracker mortgage, security and receivership were outside the claims before the court or did not provide a defence to repayment.

The second defendant argued that her guarantees had been discharged because the underlying loans changed and no new guarantee was obtained. The court found that the 2009 guarantees were continuing guarantees and expressly allowed the bank to vary or enlarge the borrower’s credit without affecting the guarantor’s liability. The court held both guarantees enforceable.

The defendants’ counterclaim included damages claims relating to the bank’s conduct and a claim for alleged interest overcharging. The judgment records the quantified overcharge claim as €57,857.67. The judge said the interest dispute could not be resolved on the evidence then before the court, but declined to stay either judgment pending that claim. The court entered judgment accordingly.

Read the original court judgment

Something looks wrong?

Highlight the relevant passage or flag this article for review. Review requests do not immediately change the report.

Email a correction request

Request a review