The High Court has granted Bank of Scotland plc judgment for €206,396,577.74, plus interest, against James Mansfield over guarantees he gave for debts owed by three companies. The court ruled on the bank’s summary judgment application and placed no restriction on execution of the judgment based on Mansfield’s proposed counterclaim.
The bank’s claim arose from guarantees relating to HSS, Jeffel and Parke. Mansfield did not dispute that the companies received the funds and defaulted, or challenge the guarantees’ validity or the demands made under them. The amounts claimed were €151,564,739.24 under the HSS guarantee, €41,222,647.70 under the Jeffel guarantee and €13,609,191.30 under the Parke guarantee.
Mansfield argued that the bank had agreed in early August 2008 to provide €17 million to €20 million for a new convention centre at Citywest. Affidavits from Mansfield, his son James Mansfield Jnr and former Mansfield Group financial controller Richard Mahon described a meeting at the bank’s offices at St Stephen’s Green. They said Mark Duffy, then the bank’s chief executive, assured them the finance would be made available and urged them to begin construction.
The bank argued that, even taking those accounts at their highest, they did not establish an enforceable loan agreement. Mr Justice Kelly agreed. He found the alleged arrangement did not specify the amount precisely, repayment terms, loan term, interest, security or the entity that would borrow the money. Those gaps meant it could not amount to a binding agreement, and Mansfield had not shown an arguable defence warranting refusal of summary judgment.
The judge also considered a May 2009 letter from HSS to the bank. The letter requested approval for €5 million towards completing the centre. The judge found it inconsistent with the alleged earlier firm commitment to provide €17 million to €20 million. He noted that the defence had not been raised in the parties’ earlier correspondence and concluded the affidavits amounted to an unsupported assertion of a counterclaim.
Even if an enforceable agreement existed, the judge said, any claim would belong to HSS, not Mansfield personally, and arose from a transaction separate from the guarantees in the case. He concluded it did not justify delaying execution. The judgment, delivered on 21 December 2011, treated Mansfield under the guarantees as both guarantor and principal obligor for the debt.