Master of the High Court should have referred contested proceedings for plenary hearing rather than striking out summary summons

Plaintiff commenced proceedings by summary summons seeking a liquidated debt - plaintiff then applied to the Master of the High Court for summary judgment - Master concluded that proceedings should have been commenced by plenary summons - Master then struck out summary summons so that the plaintiff could recommence proceedings via plenary summons - plaintiff appealed decision of Master to the High Court - summary summons was commenced in May 2011, with plaintiff financial institution contending it advanced €3,360,000 to the defendants in 2007 - in February 2011, plaintiff demanded repayment of the principal and interest in the sum of €4,152,749 - matter went before the Master in July 2012 - plaintiff submitted it was a contested matter - Order 37 of the Rules of the Superior Courts governs proceedings commenced by summary summons - Master has no jurisdiction to enter final judgment in contested cases - 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 - case was a contested case as defendants elected to defend the proceedings by filing affidavits setting out a defence - case to proceed to a consideration of the separate question of whether the plaintiff is entitled to summary judgment - appeal allowed.