The High Court granted Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Limited judgment for €167,843.87 against Ken Drumm, with statutory interest, in proceedings over five credit and hire-purchase agreements. It sent the bank’s remaining claims to a plenary hearing and said it would hear the parties on directions and costs.
The ruling, delivered by Mr Justice Herbert on 30 July 2013, followed an application for summary judgment. The court found no arguable defence to claims arising from a 2006 vehicle indemnity and a July 2007 €20,000 loan. It also rejected Drumm’s arguments that the bank had to prove an assignment of the vehicle agreement, that the loan was for buying bank shares, and that the bank’s alleged failure to provide a copy of agreements made them unenforceable.
The judge found an arguable defence to a €51,733.92 claim connected to a January 2008 €50,000 share-purchase facility. Drumm said the bank should have sold the shares held as security before they lost value. The judge said it was arguable that the pledge created an equitable mortgage and that a mortgagee might owe a duty when deciding whether to exercise its powers. He granted unconditional leave to defend this part of the claim.
The court rejected Drumm’s broader argument that alleged LIBOR or EURIBOR overcharging on other accounts gave him a defence or justified a stay. It found the proposed counterclaim was based on conjecture and concerned other accounts, rather than the specific agreements in the case.
Two October 2008 hire-purchase agreements covered vehicles identified in the judgment as a BMW later substituted with a Mercedes, and a VW Touareg. The bank sought unpaid rental balances and interest. The judge found that Drumm had repudiated the agreements and that the bank terminated them by accepting that repudiation. He awarded the claimed rental balances of €53,398.12 and €36,045.23.
The court did not enter judgment for interest claimed on those two agreements, totalling €13,429.88. It referred those interest claims, along with the other unresolved claims, to a plenary hearing. It said the bank would have to show that the contractual charge described in its demand letters as “penalty interest” was not a penalty.