The High Court has sent Cabot Financial (Ireland) Ltd’s €123,011.73 debt claim against Andrew Wilson to a plenary hearing, finding that unresolved factual and legal disputes made summary judgment inappropriate.
In a ruling delivered on 10 June 2021, Mr Justice Mark Heslin set aside a Master’s order that had dismissed the plaintiff’s motion for liberty to enter final judgment. The judge also refused to grant summary judgment, concluding that Mr Wilson had raised issues fit for a full hearing. He did not decide whether the alleged debt is owed or predict the outcome of the trial.
The proceedings began in May 2018, when Cabot Asset Purchases (Ireland) Ltd sought judgment over a loan facility and overdraft originally provided by Ulster Bank. The claim was later amended to name Cabot Financial (Ireland) Ltd as plaintiff. The claimed total comprised €116,753.97 for the facility and €6,257.76 for the overdraft.
The defendant disputed the claim, including the plaintiff’s title to the debts, the meaning of account statements showing nil balances, and whether the proceedings were brought outside the applicable six-year limitation period. The plaintiff relied on transfers between Ulster Bank, Promontoria (Oyster) DAC and Cabot entities, and on a September 2012 demand from Ulster Bank.
The Master dismissed the summary judgment motion in March 2019 after refusing the plaintiff’s request to adjourn. Justice Heslin held that the motion was contested and that the Master lacked jurisdiction to dismiss it summarily. He therefore set aside the Master’s order.
On the underlying request for judgment, the judge said the evidence did not make it sufficiently clear that there was no defence. The Ulster Bank statements showed zero balances about two months before the June 2017 transfer relied on by the plaintiff, and no Ulster Bank officer had explained their significance. The court also identified unresolved questions about when default occurred, how the facility terms affected the limitation issue, and the plaintiff’s reliance on the 2012 demand.
The court remitted the matter to plenary hearing. The defendant’s defence at that hearing is confined to issues raised on his behalf to date. The judge stressed that the ruling made no determination of those issues and did not forecast whether the defence would ultimately succeed.