The High Court has refused Sancus (IOM) Limited’s application for summary judgment against Denis Corbett, finding he had an arguable defence that requires evidence to be heard.
In a judgment delivered on 1 May 2024, Ms Justice Marguerite Bolger directed the proceedings to a plenary hearing. The ruling does not decide whether Corbett is liable for the debt. The judge said that question remains for the trial judge.
Sancus had sought judgment under a summary summons issued on 25 October 2022. The claim arose from a loan advanced to a third party in July 2017 and not repaid. Corbett was one of three guarantors. In a settlement agreement dated 17 September 2021, the guarantors agreed that net proceeds from the sale of a site would be paid to Sancus. The agreement provided for High Court judgment for any outstanding loan amount if that payment was not made, but it set no deadline for selling the site and no default provision if it remained unsold.
Sancus later set and extended sale deadlines through its solicitor’s correspondence. In a letter dated 21 September 2022, the plaintiff’s solicitor said time was of the essence for payment by 5pm on 7 October and warned that proceedings would continue against Corbett and the other guarantors if the settlement terms were not met. The letter was sent to Corbett’s solicitor expressly in that solicitor’s capacity as solicitor for co-guarantor Denton Agri Limited, the judgment records.
Sancus argued that the settlement had been breached and that Corbett had shown an inability to perform his obligation. Corbett argued that the agreement contained no sale deadline and that he had not received reasonable notice making time essential.
Justice Bolger said the notice argument was well made and raised issues requiring evidence, including whether the sale could have completed within 16 days, why the proposed purchaser did not complete, and what would have been a reasonable period to remarket the site. She said Sancus had not satisfied her that Corbett was unable to perform, while Corbett had established an arguable defence.
The judge’s indicative view was that the costs of the summary judgment motion should be treated as costs in the cause. She listed the matter for mention on 10 May 2024 for further submissions on costs and final orders. The costs view was therefore not the final order.