The High Court has granted Allied Irish Banks plc summary judgment against Patrick Taylor and Garech McGuinness for €3,483,773.68, plus interest, after finding that they had not established a credible defence requiring a full hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 4 March 2016, Mr Justice Brian J. McGovern said the bank’s claim arose under a 2011 facility agreement. The amount comprised €76,810.92 on an overdraft account, €3,397,870.13 on a loan account and €9,092.65 on an in-contract loan account. The loans were repayable on demand, and the bank sent demand letters to each defendant in July 2015.
The defendants argued that a revised facility letter from June 2013 had replaced the 2011 arrangement. They said the bank had waived a requirement for a legal charge over two sites at Barefield, Ennis, and that the bank was satisfied with the security provided. The bank denied that any waiver had been given.
The judge found that the 2013 facility required several steps before it could take effect, including providing the land charge, changing the accounts to reflect the restructured debt and supplying a statement of affairs. Those requirements had not been completed. Although the defendants had signed the revised letter and a lower monthly direct debit was recorded, the restructured balances did not appear on the account statements.
The court also rejected the defendants’ reliance on an alleged oral waiver. It held that oral evidence could not be used to contradict the written facility terms. The judge noted that a January 2014 letter from the defendants’ solicitor said security documents for the Barefield lands were still awaited; the defendants had not shown that the solicitor’s statement was mistaken.
The defendants disputed the figures and said they intended to call a financial expert if the case went to a plenary hearing, but they had not provided evidence showing the amounts were wrong. The judge also noted undisputed evidence that payments were in arrears before March 2015 and had stopped from that month.
The court concluded that the 2013 agreement had not come into effect and that the defendants had not met the threshold for sending the case to a plenary hearing. It granted the bank summary judgment. The judgment does not specify the amount of interest in the order.