Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
IEHC 105 ECLI:IE:HC:2018:105 AI generated

Bank granted summary judgment against lay litigant who claimed lack of standing due to alleged loan sale.

Case Number IEHC 105
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Ireland (IE)
Decision Date
Outcome Allowed / Granted
Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The High Court granted summary judgment in favor of Ulster Bank against defendant Liam Mulvaney for approximately €7.5 million. Mulvaney, a lay litigant, admitted owing the debt but argued the bank lacked standing because he believed the loan had been sold to Promontoria. The court rejected this claim as the bank's Declaration of Trust was valid and dismissed his other arguments as non-credible or baseless assertions.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

s. 39 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1996; A plaintiff retains locus standi to enforce a loan debt even if the borrower mistakenly believes the debt has been assigned to a third party, provided no valid assignment documentation exists.

Keywords

AI generated
summary judgment locus standi loan assignment lay litigant declaration of trust

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

[2018] IEHC 105

THE HIGH COURT

COMMERCIAL

[2017 No. 2499 S]

BETWEEN:

ULSTER BANK IRELAND DESIGNATED ACTIVITY COMPANY

PLAINTIFF

-AND-

LIAM MULVANEY

DEFENDANT

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Twomey delivered on the 7th day of March, 2018.

1. This is a summary judgement application by Ulster Bank (“the Bank”) against Mr. Mulvaney in the sum of €7,528,080.99.

2. Mr. Mulvaney is a lay litigant as immediately prior to the hearing he discharged his solicitor and his counsel.

3. Mr. Mulvaney does not deny that:-

• the Bank advanced money to him pursuant to four separate loan agreements;

• he received sums of money pursuant to the loan agreements;

• he failed to repay the sums to the bank.

4. In an affidavit dated 20th December, 2017, Mr. Mulvaney makes a number of claims to support his application for the matter to be

heard as a plenary matter.

5. The main complaint by Mr. Mulvaney, and repeated in a number of forms, is that he believes that the Bank does not have locus

standi to take the proceedings against him. However, this is based on his belief that a letter he received from the Bank indicated that

it had sold Mr. Mulvaney’s loan to Promontoria. However, the documentation establishes that the Bank executed a Declaration of

Trust in favour of Promontoria and so there is no bar to these proceedings being taken by the Bank.

6. This Court has considered all of Mr. Mulvaney’s other arguments but it does not propose to deal with each and every one in turn.

All of the arguments made by Mr. Mulvaney are either;

• not credible, e.g. that he did not receive the Bank’s terms and conditions, when there are three separate letters

to him enclosing the Bank’s terms and conditions, or;

• they amount to bald assertions e.g. that the Bank’s proceedings are misconceived without any basis for this

assertion, or;

• incorrect, e.g. the assertion that the Bank issued two sets of Summary Summons for the same debt, when the

second set of proceedings was a well charging order, or;

• in some instances they do not make sense e.g. his claim that the Bank has created a ‘false instrument’.

7. For the foregoing reasons, there is an absence of a reasonable probability that the defendant has a real or a bona fide defence and

so this Courts grants judgment in the amount set out in the Summary Summons.