The Supreme Court dismissed Tom Coyle’s appeal against summary judgment for National Asset Loan Management Limited (NAMA), finding that the account transfers and consolidations he challenged did not provide an arguable defence to the debt claim. The Court affirmed the High Court order, which granted judgment for €49,856,925.50 and £10,567,723, subject to questions about the calculation of interest proceeding to a plenary hearing.
The appeal concerned a claim arising from Coyle’s banking relationship with Anglo Irish Bank. NAMA took over his loans. Coyle argued that the bank had reorganised accounts without his authority and that the later transfer of the debt to new NAMA accounts was also unauthorised. He said the old accounts had been cleared and closed, while the new accounts had not been authorised, so NAMA could not recover the sums as a simple contract debt through summary proceedings.
The Court considered the accepted facility letter issued by Anglo Irish on 20 July 2010. It provided for six facilities and covered earlier account consolidations as well as specified further amalgamations and transfers. Justice Clarke said Coyle’s acceptance of the letter bound him to those arrangements. The Court also concluded that the November 2010 transfers to NAMA left Coyle with equivalent repayment obligations on the same terms, with the debt owed to NAMA instead of Anglo Irish. It found no legal basis for treating the transfer mechanism as a breach that defeated the debt claim.
The Court reached the same conclusion about transactions in which interest charged on one facility was, in substance, borne by another account. It said that even if those transactions made an account appear to be performing, that would not alter Coyle’s obligation to repay the loans and any interest properly due. The Court did not determine any separate question about what auditors or regulators might say about the transactions.
The appeal was confined to whether Coyle had an arguable defence to summary judgment based on the account transactions. The High Court had separately sent disputes about the calculation of interest to plenary hearing because conflicts in the affidavit evidence could not be resolved on the summary judgment motion. That finding was not appealed and remains outstanding. The Supreme Court did not decide the ultimate amount of interest due.