TD Mick Wallace argues against €2m judgment over loans he guaranteed
Published 26/01/2016 | 11:57
Independent TD Mick Wallace is resisting an application in the Commercial Court for €2m summary judgment orders to be granted against him over his guarantee of loans made to a company of his.
Mr Wallace argues the fund seeking the judgment order, Promontoria (Aran) Ltd, was not validly assigned a €2.1m loan of M& J Wallace, made to that company in 2009 by Ulster Bank, and is therefore not entitled to
He also argues the judgment application should be deferred to await the outcome of the receivership of M & J Wallace.
Promontoria appointed a receiver to the Wallace company last year over its failure to repay a demand for €2.2m, comprising the full loan and interest.
Because of the improving property market, the proceeds of that receivership should reduce his debt, Mr Wallace contends.
He is entitled to a full plenary hearing on those matters and the fund should be refused summary judgment orders, he maintains.
Mr Wallace is in court today for the hearing of the summary judgment application before Mr Justice Brian McGovern.
Paul Gardiner SC, for Promontoria, argued none of the matters advanced by Mr Wallace amounted to a defence to the entry of judgment and the court should grant the €2m judgment as sought.
Only after entry of judgment should the court address issues as to its execution or whether to grant a stay on the judgment order, counsel argued.
There was an “unequivocal statement” by Ulster Bank of February 27th 2015 that it had assigned its rights in the 2009 facility to Promontoria, counsel submitted.
Mr Wallace had also made admissions about his failure to engage with the fund concerning the debt, counsel said.
Mr Wallace had not denied that €2m was due and had also admitted his company was given the €2.1m and he had executed the relevant guarantee, counsel said. There was no dispute a demand was issued by Promontoria and, when no repayment was made, a receiver was appointed to the company. The firm had also not challenged the appointment of a receiver to it and nor had it disputed a notice of assignment of the debt.
The judge said Mr Wallace seems to be contending, because of improvements in the property market, the proceeds of the receivership will reduce his debts and therefore this case was a waste of time and resources.
Mr Gardiner said judgment should still be entered against Mr Wallace for €2m. How that judgment is executed is another matter, he said.
Mr Wallace had opposed the application for entry of this case to the Commercial Court on the basis he owes ACC €20m, counsel added.
The hearing continues.