The High Court has granted Danske Bank A/S summary judgment against Seán McElvaney for €6,397,301.64 on a guarantee relating to debts owed by Connotes Limited. Mr Justice McDermott ruled on 12 April 2016 that Mr McElvaney had no arguable or credible defence to the bank’s claim.
The application was brought by notice of motion dated 3 June 2014. The bank relied on a guarantee Mr McElvaney signed in 1998, when the lender was National Irish Bank, covering the company’s present and future liabilities. The rights under the guarantee were transferred to Danske Bank under a 2007 statutory scheme.
Connotes later obtained a €6.45 million term loan and €250,000 bridging facility under a letter dated 13 January 2004. The financing was intended to part-fund development at Setanta House Hotel and meet projected cash-flow needs. The court found Mr McElvaney accepted the facility on the company’s behalf and signed an “All Monies Guarantee” in March 2004. The company defaulted, and the bank issued demands for repayment in June 2011.
Mr McElvaney accepted signing the guarantee and the other documents bearing his signature, but argued that he had misunderstood the guarantee’s reach. He said he thought it covered only the original borrowing, had not received independent legal advice, and had limited reading skills. The judge rejected a defence of non est factum, finding that Mr McElvaney knew he was signing a guarantee and had not shown the required fundamental mistake or reasonable precautions to establish an arguable defence.
The judge also rejected challenges based on the timing of the 2004 loan acceptance, changes to loan-account numbers, and the transfer of National Irish Bank’s business to Danske Bank. The account changes reflected refinancing and consolidation, the court found, and did not alter the underlying liabilities or the continuing guarantee. The bank had also credited €815,033 received through the receivership and a further €10,569 against Mr McElvaney’s liability.
The court declined to allow cross-examination of the bank’s debt recovery manager, finding no specific disputed fact that it would help resolve. It concluded there was no reasonable ground to find an arguable defence and held the bank entitled to judgment. The source does not state a separate order on costs.