The High Court entered judgment for ADM Londis plc for €171,399.94, plus Courts Act interest from 29 May 2009, against Stephen Gibson and Tanya Gibson over a guarantee for a company debt. Mr Justice Hedigan refused the defendants leave to defend after finding that none of their five grounds disclosed an arguable basis to resist the claim.
The defendants said they had thought they were signing an account opening form, not a guarantee, and had received no independent legal advice. They also pointed to a €40,000 cash bond lodged with their bank in ADM’s favour and to Tanya Gibson’s name not being printed in block letters beside her admitted signature.
The judge rejected that defence. He said the document was headed “Guarantee” and repeatedly identified itself as one. In his view, signing it without discovering its nature failed the requirement that a person claiming non est factum take reasonable precautions. He also noted that the defendants signed as company directors and were free to enter the agreement or decline.
Three other proposed grounds concerned invoices allegedly added after the company ceased trading, rebates said not to have been credited, and the value allowed for stock repossessed after closure. The judge accepted the plaintiff’s evidence on the invoices, noting that its detailed account had not been challenged in later affidavits. He said rebates depended on payment in full by the due date, which had not occurred, and were discretionary under the plaintiff’s terms. On the stock, he cited stock sheets supporting an allowance of €9,532.58 and the absence of an objection at the time from company representatives or the liquidator. He said the defendants, as guarantors, could rely only on a legitimate company claim to reduce the debt, and found this ground unsupported by evidence.
The final ground was a proposed counterclaim alleging negligent representations during preliminary negotiations that the shop could reach weekly turnover of €25,000 to €40,000 after five years. The judge described the claim as late and largely vague. He also relied on the first defendant’s own evidence: an email in July 2008 reported weekly turnover of €29,000 for the first time, with Lotto sales, while a business rescue plan recorded turnover of €26,000 a week. The judge found no credible basis for the counterclaim.
The court’s order was judgment for the claimed principal sum and interest. The judgment does not set out a separate determination of any further damages or relief.