Jerry Beades loses Supreme Court appeal over €3.5m debt

The Supreme Court has ruled Ulster Bank is entitled to €3.5 million summary judgment against businessman Jerry Beades over unpaid loans.

A three-judge Supreme Court on Monday unanimously dismissed Mr Beades’ appeal against a Commercial Court decision he had raised no arguable defence to summary judgment.

Mr Beades, representing himself, sought a stay pending an application to the European courts. Mr Justice William McKechnie, presiding, said he could not see that any issue of European law arose and refused a stay.

Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd had issued a demand in 2013 for payment of €3.5 million arising from a May 2010 facility to Mr Beades which restructured various earlier loans. When repayment was not made, it took proceedings for summary judgment.

Mr Justice Brian McGovern ruled in October 2013 that Mr Beades had made out no arguable defence to the bank’s claim.

Dismissing Mr Beades’ appeal, the judge said, despite Mr Beades having initially made certain repayments to an acceptable level under the 2010 facility, concern soon arose at the reducing nature of such amounts.

Between March and December 2012, meetings were held with Mr Beades. When the repayment issue did not improve, this case was taken in April 2013.

The judge dismissed all grounds of appeal, including a claim Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd was not the correct plaintiff.

What is “clear and beyond dispute” is the debt sought to be recovered is as advanced in a loan facility letter issued from Ulster Bank Ireland Ltd “and from no other legal entity”, he held.

The judge was satisfied that the fact Mr Beades did not have lawyers representing him did not disadvantage him, noting Mr Beades has experience of court procedure and court advocacy.

He was also satisfied the March 2013 demand letter constituted a proper demand for repayment of the debt when a default situation had occurred.

He dismissed claims of a defence arising from claims by Mr Beades that the bank had for some years accepted a single signature on certain accounts of companies when those required two signatures, resulting in alleged misappropriation of monies.

The bank specifically urged Mr Beades in 2007 to involve the fraud squad if he thought there was any irregularity, had said it would co-operate with any inquiry and also invited Mr Beades to sue it, the judge noted.

More than 13 years after discovering the alleged irregularities, no such proceedings have taken place, he said.

He therefore did not believe that Mr Beades’ assertion and underlying submission about this was “credible”.

As the accounts at issue were those of companies which Mr Beades controlled, not his personal accounts, it was difficult, even if such irregularity took place, to see how that could be a defence to this case, he added.

The evidence and submissions from Mr Beades failed to meet the lowest threshold for a plenary hearing, the establishment of an arguable ground upon which a plausible defence had been established, he held. “Accordingly, this appeal must be dismissed.”

When Mr Beades applied for a copy of a digital recording of the appeal hearing, the judge said Mr Beades could get that if he paid for it.