BANK OF Ireland has settled on undisclosed terms proceedings against a Dublin solicitor and his wife in which the bank sought to recover €69.5 million arising from unpaid property loans and guarantees.

Summary judgment actions against companies of the couple have also been resolved.

Solicitor Brian O’Donnell and Dr Mary Pat O’Donnell, Vico Road, Killiney, Co Dublin, had argued that the bank was acting unfairly and unreasonably in demanding repayment.

They also complained the action was “ill-considered” with negative publicity over it devaluing their international property portfolio.

They claimed reputational damage inflicted on them as a result of the bank’s action exceeded the €69.5 million being sought by the bank.

Mr O’Donnell, who has described himself as one of Ireland’s leading corporate lawyers, also claimed the case has had a “devastating effect” on his practice, Brian O’Donnell Partners, Merrion Square, Dublin, and the firm’s continued existence was “in doubt”.

The bank had denied those claims and argued that what the couple essentially wanted, in light of the global financial crisis which had “consumed” many of the couple’s investments, that it should “simply not call in the money”.

The bank’s summary judgment application opened before Mr Justice Peter Kelly on Thursday but it became evident discussions were under way between the sides. Yesterday morning, the judge was asked to give more time for talks as the sides believed they could reach an agreement.

At 2pm, the judge was told by Paul Gardiner SC, for Bank of Ireland, that the matter had been resolved and that the only order sought was that the cases be adjourned generally with liberty to re-enter [in the event of the settlements not being implemented].

Maurice Collins SC, for the couple, said there was consent to that.

Mr Justice Kelly said he could not say he was surprised and the wonder was the matter had not settled some time ago. He added he wanted, in the public interest, to express his view on issues on whether the Consumer Protection Code afforded a defence to summary judgment in such cases.

Mr O’Donnell had argued he had a defence on grounds of alleged breach by the bank of the code in its dealings with the couple, including its alleged failure to deal reasonably with them over the loans.

Mr Justice Kelly said he entirely agreed with the decision earlier yesterday of Mr Justice George Birmingham – in a case where that judge granted €32 million summary judgment against a Co Monaghan man in favour of Zurich Bank – that no defence to summary judgment arose under the code.

However, he disagreed with Mr Justice Birmingham’s reference to the Zurich Bank application as one of “the rare cases” where a plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment.

While it was true summary judgment was only entered in clear cases where there was no defence, he did not accept such cases were “rare”, Mr Justice Kelly said.

B of I had sought the €69.5 million summary judgment orders against the O’Donnells over various loans and guarantees, including a €7.7 million loan to purchase a property at Ailesbury Road, Dublin, and other facilities to refinance property loans with Ulster Bank and Anglo Irish Bank.

The bank also sought €42 million summary judgment orders against three companies of the couple over the same loans.

The bank claimed default of interest payments on various facilities and also alleged the couple had failed ultimately to advance acceptable proposals to address their indebtedness and that of their companies.

The bank had also claimed the couple, and companies in which they had shareholdings, had extensive additional borrowings of some €800 million with other financial institutions across several jurisdictions.

The defendants argued they had an arguable defence on various grounds, including that the bank had acted unfairly and unreasonably and in breach of fiduciary duty to them and should have given them a proper opportunity to service and refinance the various loan facilities.

They also counterclaimed for breach of implied terms of agreement and for reputational damage.