The High Court has refused an application for summary judgment against Jennifer Ashe over a €121,550.69 claim under a personal guarantee. The court found she had raised a real or bona fide defence, and said the dispute should proceed to a plenary hearing where evidence can be tested and witnesses cross-examined.
M. Kelliher 1998 Limited claimed the sum under a guarantee Ms Ashe signed on 11 October 2016 in connection with credit facilities for Postbrook Limited. Ms Ashe, a director of Postbrook, admitted signing the document and not reading it. She said she believed she was signing a company form to reactivate its account, rather than taking on personal liability.
The company’s branch manager, Gerard O’Reilly, said Ms Ashe came to its Naas branch to sign the guarantee, brought the form with her and signed it in his presence. He said she had been given the form after a September 2016 meeting about increasing Postbrook’s credit limit, and that he had told her she was “signing her life away”. Ms Ashe disputed that account. She said she went to make a cheque payment, was asked to sign a form to get the account running again, and had neither brought nor seen the form before signing.
Her husband, Michael Ashe, disputed the company’s account of the earlier meeting. He said it concerned Postbrook’s future forecasts, that a personal guarantee had previously been discussed and declined, and that he was not given a guarantee form. The judge also noted that Mr Ashe’s affidavit did not address Mr O’Reilly’s account of a later conversation in which Mr Ashe allegedly said he would send Ms Ashe to provide the guarantee.
The judge said the disputes about the earlier meeting, Ms Ashe’s purpose in visiting the branch, what was said as she signed, and who supplied the form were material to whether she misunderstood or was misled about the document’s nature. The court also noted that she had not received a copy of the signed guarantee and, accepting her evidence for this application, had not received a 2017 letter of claim.
The ruling does not determine whether the guarantee is valid or whether Ms Ashe owes the claimed sum. It decides only that the claim should not be resolved by summary judgment. The court refused the company’s application and said it would hear the parties on a timetable for pleadings and costs.