Judgment: 2018-10-11 · Court archive

High Court to grant judgment against borrower over €2.1m loan

The court found no credible defence to Promontoria’s summary judgment application, but said it would hear counsel on the terms of the final order.

High Court, Commercial · [2018] IEHC 563

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Promontoria (Arrow) Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Cathal Mallon
  • Michael Shanahan (Defendant)
What

The court found no credible defence to Promontoria’s summary judgment application, but said it would hear counsel on the terms of the final order.

Where

Places mentioned in the report

  • Mill Lane
  • Shankill
When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

The High Court has said it will grant judgment against Cathal Mallon in Promontoria (Arrow) Limited’s claim over an unpaid loan, after finding that he had no credible defence to the application. The court left the terms of the final order to be addressed after hearing counsel.

The High Court has said it will grant judgment against Cathal Mallon in Promontoria (Arrow) Limited’s claim over an unpaid loan, after finding that he had no credible defence to the application. The court left the terms of the final order to be addressed after hearing counsel.

The application concerned a facility originally provided by EBS Building Society to Mallon and Michael Shanahan in 2006. The agreed facility was €1.8 million to buy a one acre development site at Mill Lane, Shankill, County Dublin. The loan terms were extended in 2008 and 2009.

Promontoria acquired the loan rights from National Asset Loan Management Limited in December 2015. A demand letter sent to both borrowers in July 2016 sought €2,044,306.23, the amount then due under the facility.

Shanahan had already been granted summary judgment in the same proceedings in March 2018. Mallon accepted that the money had been borrowed and remained unpaid, but argued that the loan was limited to the value of the property and that he had not understood himself to have accepted personal or joint and several liability. He also sought a plenary hearing and discovery to support his defence.

In an ex tempore judgment delivered on 11 October 2018, Mr Justice Twomey said the loan documents expressly made Mallon and Shanahan jointly and severally liable and allowed the lender to demand immediate repayment. The judge noted that Mallon signed the original facility letter and later amendments, which said the existing terms would remain unchanged. Mallon had provided no evidence to contradict the documents, the court said, describing his claims as assertions that did not amount to a credible defence.

The judge also rejected the discovery argument. Referring to earlier decisions, he said discovery required a rational basis and that unsupported assertions did not establish a right to it. The court’s conclusion was that judgment should be granted against Mallon; it did not set out the final order’s terms in the judgment, stating that counsel would be heard on them.

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