The High Court has ruled that Setanta Vehicle Sales Limited is entitled to judgment for €117,500.17 against Brian Daly under a personal guarantee covering debts owed by Brian Daly Transport Services Limited (BDTS).
In a judgment delivered on 30 April 2024, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley granted the company’s application for summary judgment. He found there was no fair and reasonable probability that Mr Daly had a real or bona fide defence to the claim. The court listed the case for mention on 8 May to address costs; the judgment does not determine that issue.
Setanta’s claim comprised €45,878.41 for the termination of a hire-purchase agreement involving two vehicles, and €71,621.76 for what the judgment describes as miscellaneous services, including additional vehicle leasing, parts, repairs and maintenance. Setanta said BDTS had failed to pay the amounts due and that Mr Daly’s guarantee covered both the hire-purchase agreement and other transactions with the company. The company was placed in liquidation around 20 February 2018.
Mr Daly’s affidavit said the trading account and services were in the company’s name, not his, and disputed personal liability. The judgment records his argument that the guarantee applied only to the hire-purchase agreement and its two vehicles, not the other services. The judge rejected that interpretation, finding that the guarantee also covered the other transactions.
The guarantee referred to “Brian Daly Transport Limited” rather than “Brian Daly Transport Services Limited”. Setanta’s director, Harry Nash, described this as a clerical error and said the surrounding documents identified BDTS as the debtor. The judge accepted that explanation, finding the company name reference was a clear mistake and that the intended reference was BDTS. He held that the error did not invalidate the guarantee.
The judgment states that the €117,500.17 award includes the termination sum and miscellaneous services. Setanta was not pursuing interest on the total claim in this application. The court’s order was that Setanta was entitled to have judgment entered for that amount; the matter was to return for the costs issue.