The High Court has reserved the legal costs of Xerotech Limited’s unsuccessful bid for summary judgment against US company AYRO Incorporated in a contract dispute worth more than US$1.83 million.
Xerotech, which is now in liquidation, issued a summary summons in December 2023 claiming US$1,830,059 plus contractual interest. It later applied for summary judgment, a procedure which allows a plaintiff to obtain judgment without a full trial where the defendant has no real or bona fide defence.
AYRO disputed the claim from an early stage. In correspondence in January and April 2024, the company said no money was due and argued there was a clear factual dispute which made the summary procedure inappropriate.
In an affidavit sworn in October 2024, AYRO maintained that no contract had ever been concluded. At the July 2025 hearing, it also advanced a secondary argument that, even if a contract existed, its conduct amounted to repudiation and Xerotech’s remedy would therefore be damages for breach of contract rather than recovery of a fixed contractual sum.
Ms Justice Emily Farrell refused summary judgment on 10 July 2025 and sent the proceedings for plenary hearing, meaning the dispute will proceed to a full trial where contested evidence can be tested. She found that AYRO had surpassed the threshold required to defend the claim and that material factual disputes remained unresolved.
The separate issue in this judgment was costs. AYRO argued that Xerotech had acted manifestly unreasonably by pursuing summary judgment and sought its costs of the proceedings to date. Xerotech argued that those costs should instead follow the eventual outcome of the case.
The judge rejected AYRO’s argument that seeking summary judgment had been manifestly unreasonable. She held that the factual disputes which caused the case to be sent to trial may ultimately be resolved in Xerotech’s favour.
The costs were therefore reserved for determination by the judge who hears the substantive action.