The High Court granted National Asset Loan Management DAC summary judgment against Michael Breslin for £9,048,360.41 sterling, with interest, under a guarantee linked to loans to Car Park Solutions Ltd. In a judgment delivered on 26 May 2017, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern found that Breslin had raised no arguable defence to the claim and was not entitled to have the case sent to a plenary hearing.
Anglo Irish Bank made two short-term facilities available to Car Park Solutions in 2007, totalling up to £21.4 million. The company did not repay them by the original deadlines. In 2008, Anglo extended the repayment dates and sought additional guarantees. Breslin signed loan-related letters on 5 November 2008 and executed a guarantee and indemnity around October that year.
After the facilities remained unpaid, Anglo made demands on the company in August 2009. National Asset Loan Management, a NAMA group entity, acquired the facilities and related security, including the guarantee, on 13 December 2010. It demanded payment from Breslin in February 2015. The judgment records that he did not dispute the guarantee’s terms, the amount claimed or that he had not repaid it.
Breslin raised several grounds in opposition to summary judgment. He alleged that an Anglo representative had promised construction finance for a London project if he signed the guarantee, and said he had later secured a release at a meeting with representatives of IBRC. He also challenged proof of NALM’s acquisition, relied on an alleged negative pledge in floating charges granted by Anglo, and sought to challenge the constitutionality of provisions of the NAMA Act.
The judge rejected those grounds. He said the guarantee contained clear terms recording that Breslin had not relied on representations and had been given the opportunity to take independent legal advice. The alleged release arose from separate negotiations about joint borrowings secured on the Dunsany property, the judgment said; NALM had not agreed to release Breslin from this guarantee.
A certificate under section 108 of the NAMA Act stated that the relevant facilities and security had transferred to NALM. The judge held that the certificate was conclusive evidence of the acquisition and rejected both the acquisition challenge and the floating-charge argument. He also found that the constitutional challenge was raised outside the applicable time limits.
The ruling determined the summary judgment application: the court found no arguable defence and entered summary judgment for NALM. The judgment does not state the interest rate or set out a separate calculation of interest.