Bank granted order for judgement where there is no substance to defences raised

Summary judgement sought – overdraft facility provided by Plaintiff - contracts of guarantee signed by the First Defendant 2 February 2019 – letters of demand sent 14 April 2015 and 11 October 2016 - Defendants resisted on several grounds – allege Plaintiff never stated when breach or default occurred – allege no time allowed for repayment after demand - allege delay of three years which caused accrual of interest – discrepancy in rate of interest charged – lack of detail for the sums claimed – no mention in affidavits of other security provided, notably a mortgage debenture – points out that sum claimed in October 2016 was greater than was owed - Plaintiff claims matter sufficiently unclear as to require a full hearing – no dispute regarding overdraft facility or contracts of guarantee - no uncertainty regarding sum owed – no substance to assertion of failure to specify date of breach as bank entitled to seek repayment on demand – Plaintiff allowed time to repay – no substance to issue of delay raised – sufficient detail provided and no need to mention mortgage debenture – Court satisfied that the discrepancy in rate of interest charged reflects the natural fluctuation of rate of variable interest over time – sum claimed in October 2016 incorrectly stated but later corrected and not fatal - matter not remitted to full hearing judgement granted.