Master of the High Court should have transferred contested case to judge’s list of the High Court

Appeal from the Master of the High Court - bank commenced proceedings by summary summons seeking a liquidated debt - applied to the Master for summary judgment - concluded that the proceedings ought instead to have been commenced by plenary summons - whether the Master is entitled to strike out the summary summons proceedings and require the bank to recommence by way of plenary action - Rules of the Superior Courts - bank contends that it advanced the sum of €3,360,000 to the borrowers - demanded repayment of the principal and interest in the sum of €4,152,755, which it contended was due under the loan agreement - Appearances were entered - issued a motion for liberty to enter final judgment in the sum of €4,244,749 (including further interest) – borrowers filed three replying affidavit by way of defence – bank submitted to the Master that this was a contested matter – argued that the case should be transferred into the High Court - borrowers submitted that as the bank was aware when the proceedings had been commenced that the borrowers had a substantive defence to the proceedings, the proceedings ought to be struck ought - Master struck out the proceedings on this ground – Master stated that the bank could always start again by way of plenary summons - procedure governing the hearing of proceedings commenced by summary summons - powers of the Master in uncontested cases, on the one hand, and those which obtain in contested cases, on the other - in uncontested cases the Master may deal with the matter summarily and give liberty to enter final judgment - the Master has no jurisdiction to enter final judgment in contested cases – Master’s task in such cases is rather to transfer the matter to the High Court for hearing when the case is “in order” for hearing by the Court – Master does not have jurisdiction to strike out contested cases on the ground that the pleadings are in some way irregular or that the proceedings ought to have been commenced by plenary action rather than by way of summary summons - meaning of the words “contested case” and “uncontested case” - “an uncontested case” in its ordinary sense as meaning one where the defendant offers no opposition to the application over and above the entry of an appearance - entry of an appearance is not in itself sufficient to bring a case into the category of a contested case – the Master has no function to resolve a conflict of fact or to make an assessment of the likely strength of the case made by either the plaintiff or the defendant or to determine that the case ought to have been commenced by plenary summons - case was plainly a contested case in that the borrowers have elected to defend the proceedings by filing affidavits setting out that defence - the Master had no jurisdiction but to transfer the case to the judge’s list of the High Court in accordance with O. 37, r. 6 once the case was administratively ready for this purpose.