Company directors have no defence to financial institution’s claim for judgment

Plaintiff financial institution seeking summary judgment against the defendants in the sum of €3,893,135.06, with interest, on the foot of five guarantees of the liabilities of a company of which the three defendants are directors and shareholders - guarantees were executed by the defendants on diverse dates, with the final guarantee executed in August 2008 - Master of the High Court gave liberty to the plaintiff to enter final judgment in respect of part of the claim in December 2013 - this application is to be treated as a motion for summary judgment in which the defendants seek leave to defend - defendants seek to assert that they have a prima facie defence on six grounds - defendants claim that individual representing plaintiff who has sworn four affidavits was not an officer of the financial institution, and therefore the affidavits sworn are hearsay evidence - court hearing a summary motion may make a determination on a legal argument on which a defence is asserted to arise - a long and detailed letter was sent by the then solicitor for the debtors in July 2012 to the receiver appointed by the financial institution, in which he set out the history of the transaction between the financial institution and the company - sufficient evidence of key elements to be proved by the financial institution that the affidavits are evidence of the monies advanced to the company - counsel for the defendants has not made out any statable argument that his complaint with regard to the appointment of the receiver might give his client a defence - no requirement exists such that a guarantee must be signed by the person in whose favour it is made - assertions on the part of the defendant to a possible defence cannot suffice as the court must be satisfied that the deposed facts could give rise to a real or bona fide defence - the correspondence and the formal financial institution documents do not bear out even an arguable case that the financial institution and the company were engaged in a joint venture or that some form of special relationship existed - defendants have not made out an arguable case that the loan facility to the company was anything other than a standard commercial loan - no evidence that a common assumption that could found an estoppel - the plaintiff has proved that the guarantees were made in fact, and there is evidence from the defendants themselves that they were properly executed - when the company defaulted on its loans in 2008, this gave the financial institution an entitlement to demand - the financial institution did what it could to try to assist the company in continuing the development in the hope that it could trade out of its financial difficulty - no mala fides where financial institution offered a loan to the company that the company did not accept - each of the defendants extended a guarantee and indemnity in respect of the loans - defendants did not establish any basis on which they might be entitled to defend - judgment entered in the sum of €3,893,135.06, with interest.