The High Court has granted the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland judgment in a loan repayment claim against Patrick and Angela McMahon, finding they had no bona fide defence to the claim. The judgment states that the Bank was entitled to judgment “in the amount claimed”; it does not specify the final sum in its concluding order.
Mr Justice Noonan’s judgment, delivered on 24 October 2017, records that ICS Building Society offered the couple a €960,000 mortgage loan in April 2006 to buy a property in Castleknock, Dublin 15, for €1.2 million. The full loan was drawn down that month. The judgment says arrears had reached about €12,000 by early 2011 and almost €120,000 by mid-2013. A summary summons issued in June 2013 sought about €970,000.
The Bank of Ireland became the plaintiff after a 2014 transfer of ICS Building Society’s assets and liabilities. The McMahons unsuccessfully sought to set aside the change to the case title and later unsuccessfully sought discovery. The Bank’s application for final judgment was heard over two days in July 2017, after the defendants filed affidavits raising numerous objections and Mr McMahon made oral submissions.
The judge rejected the defendants’ argument that alleged securitisation of the loan deprived the Bank of the right to recover it. He said there was no evidence that the loan had been securitised, but added that the loan documents expressly permitted transfer and securitisation and that this would not prevent recovery of the debt.
The judgment also rejected arguments that the loan terms were unfair, that pursuing a separate Circuit Court possession case was unfair or unconstitutional, and that summary judgment denied the defendants a fair hearing. The judge said the defendants had not identified a specific unfair contract term. He found that the doorstep-selling regulations did not apply to the mortgage, and that complaints about a receiver and the property’s registration did not relate to the repayment claim. He also rejected the asserted fiduciary duty and reckless-lending arguments.
The Bank had indicated it was prepared to waive €983.08 after documents relied on by the defendants suggested an overcharge in that amount. The judgment does not say whether that waiver altered the amount of the judgment. It concludes that the defendants had no defence meeting the threshold for a trial and that the Bank was entitled to judgment for the amount claimed.