Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Mavroudis [2020] IEHC 136 (21 February 2020)

BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!

JUDGMENT of Mr. Justice Meenan delivered on the 21st day of February, 2020

1. In these proceedings, the plaintiff seeks summary judgment in the sum of €300,401.66,

plus interest accruing from 3 October 2015. These were monies lent by the plaintiff to the

defendant which were not repaid. The defendant does not dispute the fact that he

borrowed these monies, and that he has not repaid them. Rather, the defendant has set

out, at great length in numerous affidavits, a number of matters which he maintains

relieves him of the obligation to repay the monies he borrowed. The defendant appeared

2. The defendant describes himself as being an unemployed engineer; planning consultant;

and project manager. He was previously an architect until the establishment of the

architects register, as per the Building Control Act, 2007. Like countless other

professionals who worked in the building and construction industry, the defendant was a

casualty of the recent financial crisis. Even though these catastrophic events took place

nearly a decade ago, the aftershocks are still being felt. The virtual collapse of the

building and construction sector left professionals, such as the defendant, in a particularly

vulnerable position. Those who owed engineers and architects money for professional fees

also owed monies to others, leaving the architects and engineers last to be paid, if at all.

This was the financial situation which the defendant found himself in when the plaintiff

3. The defendant seeks to have the plaintiff’s claim remitted to plenary hearing. In support

of this, as already mentioned, he has filed several very lengthy affidavits, and written

submissions which run to some 55 pages. As a consequence, the hearing of this motion,

which ought to have been dealt with in a day, took significantly longer to hear. As will be

clear from this judgment, save in respect of one issue, the defendant has established no

grounds whereby the Court could direct a plenary hearing of the plaintiff’s claim. The

result of this will be not only that the defendant will be facing judgment for a significant

sum of money, but, should costs be awarded against him, he will also be facing having to

4. Monies were advanced to the defendant on foot of three facility letters: -

(i) By facility letter, dated 6 May 2004, the Governor and Company of the Bank of

Ireland offered, and the defendant accepted, a loan facility in the sum of €159,750

together with interest for a term of thirty years. Interest was payable on this loan

at the rates set out therein. The defendant defaulted in his repayment and by letter

of demand, dated 25 June 2013, the plaintiff demanded the sum outstanding of

that date. By a further letter, dated 27 July 2015, the plaintiff’s Solicitors wrote to

the defendant informing him that the sum outstanding, as of 22 July 2015, was

€92,610.31, which sum was inclusive of arrears of €4,136.86. With further interest,

(ii) By facility letter, dated 7 February 2007, the plaintiff offered, and the defendant

accepted, a loan facility in the sum of €55,000 together with interest thereon for a

term of 25 years. This offer was accepted on or about 16 February 2007. The

defendant defaulted on repayment. By letter of demand, dated 25 June 2013, the

plaintiff demanded the sum then outstanding, which was €47,269.27 being the

redemption balance of the same amount. By a further letter, dated 27 July 2015,

the plaintiff’s Solicitors wrote to the defendant informing him that the sum

outstanding, as of 22 July 2015, was €44,341.12 which sum is inclusive of arrears

of €1,639.89. As of 2 October 2015, the amount due in respect of this loan,

(iii) By facility letter, dated 20 April 2007, the plaintiff offered a loan facility in the sum

of €240,000 together with interest thereon for a term of 25 years. This offer was

accepted by the defendant, and the sum of €240,000 was drawn down.

The defendant defaulted in his repayment obligations to the plaintiff and by letter of

demand, dated 25 June 2013, the plaintiff demanded the sum outstanding as of 25 June

2013, being the sum of €236,286.38 which sum is inclusive of arrears of €29,653.14. By

letter, dated 27 July 2015, the plaintiff’s Solicitors wrote to the defendant informing him

that the sum outstanding on this loan, as at 22 July 2015, was €162,050.30. The sum

was inclusive of arrears of €6,118.21. As at 2 October 2015, the sum outstanding on this

5. By reason of the foregoing, there is a sum due and owing by the defendant to the plaintiff

of €300,401.66 together with interest accruing from 3 October 2015. The particulars of

these loans are set out in detail in an affidavit of Ms. Andrea de Courcey, sworn on behalf

of the plaintiff, grounding the application for summary judgment.

6. The principles which this Court has to apply on an application for summary judgment,

such as this, are well established. I refer to the following passage from Hardiman J. in Aer

“… the fundamental questions to be posed on an application such as this remain: is

it “very clear” that the defendant has no case? Is there either no issue to be tried

or only issues which are simple and easily determined? Do the defendant’s

7. I also refer to the following passage from Clarke J. (as he then was) in McGrath v.

“So far as questions of law or construction are concerned the court can, on a

motion for summary judgment, resolve such questions (including, where

appropriate, questions of the construction of documents), but should only do so

where the issues which arise are relatively straightforward and where there is no

real risk of an injustice being done by determining those questions within the

somewhat limited framework of a motion for summary judgment. …”

8. It is clear that the hearing of a motion for summary judgment is necessarily limited.

Despite such limitation, mere assertions by the defendant as to grounds of defence are,

without more, not sufficient to have the matter remitted to plenary hearing. It seems to

me that a court, when it comes to deciding issues of law or statutory interpretation, is in

as good a position to give a determination following a hearing of a motion for summary

9. Having stated the principles, I will now consider the various defences put forward by the

defendant to determine whether they reach the threshold as would require the Court to

direct a plenary hearing. As has been referred to already, there is no dispute but that the

defendant borrowed the monies from the plaintiff and did not repay them in full.

Transfer of loan from Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland to the plaintiff

10. It will be noted that the first facility, of 6 May 2004 for €159,750, was provided to the

defendant by the Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland. This loan was

subsequently transferred to the plaintiff. The defendant questions the legality of this

11. The background to the transfer is set out in the grounding affidavit of Andrea de Courcey

where she refers to this facility as being among the assets that were transferred to the

plaintiff under a transfer scheme, dated 2 July 2004, under the provisions of s. 58 of the

“(1) A designated credit institution may transfer to another credit institution (including

one that is not a designated credit institution) the whole or part of its business, or

all of its assets or such of those assets as it specifies, but only with the approval of

12. The said bank is a “designated credit institution” and the transfer was approved by the

relevant person, being the then Chief Executive of the Irish Financial Services Regulatory

Authority. Further, clause 10 of the said facility letter permits the said bank to transfer

the facility as part of a loan transfer scheme. The defendant has failed to identify any

13. As the defendant has failed to identify any legal infirmity in the transfer of the said loan to

the plaintiff, it follows that he has established no ground of defence on this point.

14. The defendant alleges that he was overcharged on interest in respect of, in particular, the

first facility of 6 May 2004. There appeared to be a number of interest rates, involving: a

fixed rate, a variable rate and a tracker variable rate, which were charged on various

occasions. In his affidavit, the defendant estimates the overcharge to have been of the

15. This matter was dealt with in a replying affidavit on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant

may well have an issue on this, which, in my view, could not be fairly resolved on affidavit

evidence alone. For this reason, I will remit so much of the plaintiff’s claim on interest, as

is disputed, to plenary hearing. Taking the figure identified by the defendant, I will round

it up to €16,300. I will direct a plenary hearing on that amount.

16. In the course of his various affidavits, the defendant maintains that advice given to him

by the plaintiff, to switch to a five year fixed rate in May, 2007, was negligent.

17. I can see no basis for this defence. The plaintiff is a qualified professional and under no

disability whatsoever. It is stating the obvious to say that fixing an interest rate will give

protection in the event of the rate rising, but will be an additional cost in the event of the

interest rate falling. This is a statement of the obvious and I cannot see how the

defendant could not have been aware of this. Thus, there is no stateable defence and/or

18. The defendant contests the validity of the letters of demand and maintains that after they

had been issued he had a meeting with an employee of the plaintiff which “had the effect

of negating those letters of demand”. In support of this, the defendant exhibits a number

of letters from the plaintiff. However, examination of these letters does not in any way

support the defendant’s contention. In fact, the reverse is the case. By letter, dated 16

April 2014, from the plaintiff to the defendant, it is specifically stated: -

“The bank will not be withdrawing the demand letters which were issued to you.

Any enforcement action taken by the bank is an action which the bank has a power

19. The defendant made the point that not all the facilities were in arrears and, thus, there

was no basis for issuing the letters of demand. However, the mortgage deed exhibited in

the affidavit of Ms. Jacinta Enright, on behalf of the plaintiff, provides that the plaintiff is

entitled to make a demand on all monies unpaid by the defendant in the event of default

of any monthly or other periodic payment in respect of any of the loans secured.

20. I am satisfied that the defendant has identified no issue in respect of the letters of

demand as would require me to remit the action to plenary hearing.

21. The defendant takes issue with the appointment, by the plaintiff, of a receiver over the

secured properties, being numbers 10 and 12A Pembroke Court, Carlow. These issues

relate to the appointment of the receiver, the effects of the receivership on the rents

payable from the said properties and the amount achieved by the sale of the said

22. At no stage did the defendant challenge the appointment of a receiver. The mortgage

deed provides for the appointment of a receiver, and for the receiver to enter and sell the

secured property. Further, the receiver is an agent of the defendant, and the said

mortgage deed provides that the defendant “shall be solely responsible for the acts

omissions and defaults of such receiver”. Thus, if there was a reduction in the rent from

the secured properties that is not a matter in respect of which the plaintiff has

23. If the said properties were sold at an undervalue, the remedy for the defendant would lie

in an action against the receiver and not the plaintiff. Therefore, it follows that the

defendant has made out no grounds for a defence concerning the appointment and the

24. The defendant alleges that the plaintiff excessively pursued a number of individuals who

owed him money. He alleges that this had the effect of depriving him of the financial

resources which he might otherwise have had. The defendant maintains that this is a

basis for defending these proceedings. In my view, this stands up to no analysis. The

plaintiff is entitled to pursue those who owe it money. The fact that paying the plaintiff

may result in the defendant not being paid monies owed by those persons is unfortunate,

25. The defendant seeks to rely upon the terms of the “Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts

Regulations 1995” (“the Regulations”). This Court considered the application of the

Regulations to cases such as this in Allied Irish Banks Plc v. O’Donohoe & Anor.

“16. Having considered the authorities and having regard to the provisions of the

Regulations, I am of the view that the provisions in the ‘general terms and

conditions of offer of mortgage loan’ (clause 3.5) and ‘the mortgage conditions’

(clause 4.1) that relate to the payment of interest are not in breach of the

Regulations. I reach this conclusion for the following reasons: -

(i) Article 4 of the Regulations provides a term will not be ‘considered to be

unfair by relation to the definition of the main subject matter of the contract’.

The main subject matter of the contract in question is that monies were

advanced to the defendants to refinance the purchase of an apartment. This

was of clear benefit to the defendants. The monies advanced had to be

repaid to the plaintiff over the term of the loan. Having the benefit of these

monies, which the defendants would not otherwise have had, came at a price

– interest was payable. The interest rate may vary over the term of the loan.

Thus, in my view, the amount advanced, the term of the loan and the

interest that is payable are the ‘main subject matters of the contract’.

Therefore, applying Article 4 of the Regulations, the clauses in question that

relate to the payment of interest do not fall within the scope of the

(ii) It seems to me that interest rate clauses, such as the ones in the instant

case, do not to fall within the scope of the Regulations. I refer to what is

called the ‘grey list’ in Schedule 3 subparagraph (l) of the Regulations.

Subparagraph (l) covers situations where a supplier of services increases

prices, in this case, increasing interest rates. Such may be an ‘unfair term’

and it would appear to support the defendants’ case. However, Schedule 3

goes on to specifically provide that subparagraph (l) does not apply to ‘…

financial instruments and other products or services where the price is linked

to fluctuations in … a financial market rate that the seller or supplier does not

I would suggest that this provision is consistent with the view that interest

rate clauses, such as those in question before this Court are the ‘main

subject matter’ as per Article 4, of a mortgage or loan agreement and thus

26. Though I am of the view that the Regulations do not apply in the case before me, I am

mindful that if they did then the court is required to assess, of its own motion, whether a

contractual term is unfair. I cannot find any unfairness in the terms of the loan or the

mortgage deed. In simple terms, monies were advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant

which had to be repaid by the defendant. These monies came at a price, namely: having

to pay interest. The various loans were secured and, in default, the plaintiff was entitled

to appoint a receiver over the property secured. I cannot see any unfairness in this.

27. The defendant seeks to rely on alleged breaches of the Consumer Protection Codes of

2006 and 2012. He alleges, inter alia, that the plaintiff failed to act “honestly, fairly,

professionally in a manner that protects my best interests, as their customer”. The

plaintiff denies this, but submits that any alleged breach of the said Code does not afford

a defence. The plaintiff relies on the decision of Birmingham J. in Zurich Bank v.

“Entirely lacking is any suggestion that a breach of the Code renders the contract

null and void or otherwise exempts a borrower from the liability to repay. The

questions of sanctions is referred to in s.33AQ of the Central Bank Act, 1942 as

amended by s. 10(1) of the Central Bank and Financial Services Authority of Ireland

Act 2004. This contains provisions for matters such as caution or reprimand, the

payment of a monetary penalty to the financial regulatory authority, disqualification

provisions and the like, but again there is no suggestion that a lender is prohibited

from seeking repayment from its borrower. The contrast between the approach

taken in the Code and the approach of the Consumer Credit Act, 1995 is striking.

Section 30 of the Act contains mandatory provisions concerning a credit agreement

or contract of guarantee entered into by a consumer. … There are no comparable

28. The defendant also relied on the provisions of s. 30 of the Consumer Credit Act, 1995.

However, s. 30 does not apply to “housing loans”, which are defined in s. 2. It is clear

that the loans in question before the Court fall within the definition of “housing loans”.

29. The defendant also seeks to rely on the “Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears 2013”.

However, this Code only applies to a mortgage loan secured on a borrower’s “primary

30. By reason of the foregoing, I reach the conclusion that the defendant has established no

defence under consumer protection legislation nor under the various codes of conduct

31. The defendant submitted that the plaintiff failed to comply with its “base prospectus”. In

particular, he relies upon the following extract from the prospectus: -

“… the ability of the Issuer to dispose of a residential property, realisation of that

security is likely to involve sale of that property with vacant possession. The ability

of the Issuer to dispose of a residential property without the consent of the

borrower will depend on a court granting vacant possession, the relevant property

market conditions at the relevant time and the availability of the buyers for the

32. Firstly, it is not at all clear what relevance this extract has to the case before the Court.

Secondly, an alleged breach of the prospectus does not give rise to actionable rights on

33. The defendant seeks to rely upon the terms of the Asset Covered Securities Act, 2001.

The purpose of this Act was to create a legal framework for the issue, by designated

banks, of bonds secured on underlying mortgages or loans to public sector bodies. I

cannot see what relevance the terms of this Act have to the defendant’s purported

defence. The defendant has failed to identify any provision in the said Act that may assist

34. By reason of the foregoing, I am satisfied that, save for the issue of interest, the

defendant has failed to establish any defence as would permit this Court to direct a

plenary hearing in the action. I therefore will grant the plaintiff judgment in the sum of

€284,101 (plus interest that may have accrued), and remit the sum of €16,300 to plenary

hearing.

Result: Plaintiff seeking summary judgment, granted except on the issue of 'Overpayment of interest' which was remitted to plenary hearing.

	[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	High Court of Ireland Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> High Court of Ireland Decisions >> Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v Mavroudis [2020] IEHC 136 (21 February 2020) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2020/2020IEHC136.html Cite as: [2020] IEHC 136

High Court of Ireland Decisions