Banking Law Update

Recent High Court Decision: Promontoria (Gem) DAC v Redmond, Ciaran, Michael O'Neill and others (2/5/218 No. 217/2260 S [2018] IEHC 231)

Summary: The plaintiff bank, applied for summary judgment against the defendants arising from borrowings relating to 16 apartments in Bunclody, Co. Wexford. The original terms of the loan offered the defendants a facility of €3,896,000. The defendants accepted the facility letter and the original bank’s general conditions in January 2005.

Only two of the defendants contested the proceedings. The fourth defendant, Mr Crean, argued that the matter should go to a plenary hearing because he claimed that a binding settlement agreement had been entered between him and the bank in February 2018. The third defendant, Ms Norton, also relied on the purported settlement agreement as a defence to the summary proceedings against her.

Decision of the Court: Twomey J held that, no credible defence had been provided to these proceedings and took note of the fact that neither Mr Crean nor Ms Norton disputed that the sum of €3.896,000 was borrowed and had not been paid back. Twomey J held that the appropriate order to make was to grant summary judgment for the principal sum of €3,896,000.

Comment: This decision highlights that the Court will deal with matters on a Summary basis where possible and in circumstances where the defendants are deemed not to suffer prejudice from same. Plenary matters are a greater strain on the resources of the Court given their extended running time.  

Brady Kilroy