Judgment: 2025-02-10 · Court archive

High Court allows Cabot to enter €231,580 judgment against borrower

The court rejected the borrower’s account that the remaining loan balance had been waived after a secured property sale, finding it unsupported and contradicted by correspondence.

High Court · [2025] IEHC 97

Who, what, where, when and why

Who
  • Cabot Financial (Ireland) Limited (Plaintiff)
  • Gerard Reynolds (Defendant)
What

The court rejected the borrower’s account that the remaining loan balance had been waived after a secured property sale, finding it unsupported and contradicted by correspondence.

Where

No place detail is included in this summary.

When

Judgment:

Why

Reasons reported in the judgment

Applying the test for summary judgment, Justice Jackson concluded that Reynolds had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of having a real defence. She described the alleged assurance as vague and lacking detail, and said it was contradicted by the documents. The court did not send the claim to a plenary hearing and granted Cabot liberty to enter final judgment for the sum sought.

The High Court has given Cabot Financial (Ireland) Limited liberty to enter final judgment for €231,580.11 against Gerard Reynolds after rejecting his claim that the remaining loan balance had been waived when secured lands were sold.

Ms Justice Nuala Jackson made the order on 10 February 2025 in summary proceedings. She also said Cabot was entitled to costs, but stayed the costs order for 14 days and gave the parties liberty to apply if they wished to argue against it.

The case concerned a €556,000 loan originally advanced by ACC Bank plc in 2011. The secured property was sold in about 2014, with net proceeds of €351,043.36 applied to the loan. Cabot sought judgment for the residual balance, saying it had demanded payment in February 2020. Reynolds told the court he did not dispute the figures calculated by Cabot.

In an affidavit opposing summary judgment, Reynolds said an unnamed ACC manager had assured him that the bank would not pursue the balance because he co-operated with the sale. He said the assurance could not be put in writing. He also asserted that ACC had agreed to write off the balance. His affidavit included no supporting documents.

The judge considered that account against correspondence exhibited by Cabot. Before the sale, ACC had written that the borrower would remain liable for any residual balance after the net proceeds were paid. After the sale, the bank sent a statement showing the balance and correspondence seeking a repayment plan. The judge said the earlier correspondence showed no dispute that a balance remained due, although it referred to an inability to pay.

Applying the test for summary judgment, Justice Jackson concluded that Reynolds had not shown a fair or reasonable probability of having a real defence. She described the alleged assurance as vague and lacking detail, and said it was contradicted by the documents. The court did not send the claim to a plenary hearing and granted Cabot liberty to enter final judgment for the sum sought.

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