Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court rules that a claim for summary judgment must proceed by way of plenary hearing where there is a dispute as to whether a guarantee provided by the second defendant is for €50,000 of the first defendant's debts or, as the first defendant claims, is for the amount owed by the first defendant exceeding €150,000, up to an agreed overdraft limit of €200,000.
Motion for liberty to enter final judgment against second named defendant in the sum of €50,000 plus interest - first defendant is indebted to plaintiff for sum of €144,983.30 - guarantee limited to €50,000 provided by by second defendant - fist defendant recently went into liquidation - money sought by plaintiff by letter of 8th January 2016 - dispute as to nature and scope of guarantee - plaintiff says guarantee was for debts of first named defendant limited to €50,000.00 - second defendant says plaintiff wished to reduce credit facility afforded to first defendant by plaintiff from €200,000.00 to €150,000.00 - second defendant says credit facility remained at €200,000.00 on basis that he provided guarantee for difference - level of debt never rose above €145,000.00 - court finds that second defendant has a fair or reasonable probability of having a bona fide defence - court directs that case must proceed by way of plenary hearing.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
The only subject matter index for all Irish judgments over the past thirteen years. Click here to request a subscription.
Register Now