Zurich Bank -v- Mc Connon [2011] IEHC 75 (4 March 2011)

Zurich Bank -v- Mc Connon [2011] IEHC 75 (4 March 2011)

The defendant failed to establish any arguable defence on any of the grounds advanced. The conditions precedent in the facility letter were for the bank’s benefit and could be waived; there was no promissory estoppel as the bank honoured the standstill agreement; frustration did not apply as the collapse in property...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] IEHC 75
Parties
Plaintiff: Zurich Bank; Respondent: Jim McConnon
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
04 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Commercial Division, Summary Judgment Motion
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Loan Agreements, Defences to Debt Claims, Estoppel, Frustration of Contract, Consumer Protection Code
Banking Law Contract Law Commercial Law Summary Judgment Loan Agreements Defences to Debt Claims Estoppel Frustration of Contract +1 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zurich Bank

Plaintiff

Jim McConnon

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Commercial Division, Summary Judgment Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has an arguable defence to the bank's claim for repayment of a loan under a facility letter
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment should be granted or the matter should go to trial

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to establish any arguable defence on any of the grounds advanced. The conditions precedent in the facility letter were for the bank’s benefit and could be waived; there was no promissory estoppel as the bank honoured the standstill agreement; frustration did not apply as the collapse in property values did not fundamentally alter the nature of the contract; and the Consumer Protection Code did not apply to the defendant nor did it provide a defence to repayment. Accordingly, summary judgment is granted.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the plaintiff.

Orders

  • Judgment for Zurich Bank in the sum of €31,883,565.56 plus continuing interest.