Fundamental conflict of fact necessitates a full plenary hearing in bank’s claim against borrower

Plaintiff (bank) seeks judgment in the sum of €16,896,207.26 - alleged debt arises from a deed of settlement dated 14th November 2014, whereby the defendant agreed to pay €2,360,000 to the bank -the bank also alleges that subordinated bank bonds owned by the defendant were alleged by the defendant to exceed the overall value of his indebtedness - subsequent to the settlement the defendant sold the bonds for €6m - the bank says that the defendant is in breach of a term of the deed of settlement under which he was under an obligation to act in the utmost good faith - the defendant says that bank was aware of his intention to sell and the likely price at which the bonds would sell - whether defendant failed to disclose relevant information to the bank - whether under deed of settlement bank is out of time to sue the defendant - whether the transaction underlying the debt (namely a share support scheme) is illegal and accordingly whether the debt is therefore irrecoverable - whether plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment - whether defendant has arguable defence - court finds there is fundamental issue of fact concerning the sale of the bonds that cannot be decided at summary stage - court also finds the points raised by the defendant concerning the construction of the settlement and the illegality of the transaction are also ones that are not suitable for determination at summary hearing - court sends matter to plenary hearing.