AIB secures €2.5m judgment against trio over unpaid loans

The High Court has ruled AIB is entitled to summary judgment of just over €2.5m against three men over unpaid loans.

The orders were made against Mr Sean Keane Rocklands, Gracedieu, Waterford, Mr Michael Ryan, Laraghcon Lucan Co Dublin and his father Mr Michael Ryan Snr of Argus House, Greenmount Office Park, Harolds Cross Road, Dublin 6.

The bank provided a loan in August 2007 to Mr Keane and Mr Ryan Jnr for the purchase and development of light industrial units at a two acre site at Waterford Airport Business Park.

To secure the loans, which were to be repaid within two years, Mr Ryan Snr provided a guarantee in the form of a charge over the Al Eile stud farm in Dungarvan, Co Waterford.

AIB called in the loans in 2010. Lawyers for the defence argued that AIB was not entitled to call in the loan when it did arguing that there was a bona fide defence to the proceedings and that the case should be adjourned to a plenary hearing.

They claimed there was a variation of the terms of the loan, after it was decided to reduce the size of the development by 40%, to the effect that AIB would support Mr Ryan Jnr and Mr Keane over the longer term. Further facility letters were furnished by the bank, they claimed

However AIB, who rejected the defendant's claims said that it was entitled to summary judgment of the monies. While it was accepted that further facility letter were offered it called in the loan after Mr Ryan Snr refused to sign a new guarantee.

In her judgment today Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne rejected all the defendants arguments ruled that AIB was entitled to judgment of €2,527,628. against each of the defendants.

The Judge said that bank issued letters of demand in July 2010 calling in the loan after the Mr Keane and Mr Ryan jnr failed to make any repayments of principle or interest on the expiry of the facility. There were also problems with the guarantor.

While the bank was willing to allow Mr Keane and Mr Ryan jnr "some leeway" the refusal to provide a new guarantee in respect of the further letters of sanction led to the decision to call in the loan.

That refusal was an event for default provided for in the general terms and conditions applicable, and the Judge held the bank was entitled to demand repayment.