The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by Gabriel Matthews and Ronald Matthews against summary judgments obtained by Close Invoice Finance Limited over guarantees supporting lending to Garlester Limited.
The High Court had entered judgment against Gabriel Matthews for €369,644.43 and against Ronald Matthews for €150,000, the maximum liability under his guarantee. It sent a further €100,000 of the claim against Gabriel Matthews to a plenary hearing, where it can be examined in more detail. The Court of Appeal left that part of the High Court order undisturbed; the finance company had not cross-appealed it.
The appeal concerned the High Court’s decision to grant summary judgment, a procedure used where the court finds no arguable defence requiring a full trial. The defendants argued that the company’s assets had been sold at a gross undervalue through the receiver’s process, allegedly with the finance company’s involvement. They also challenged the accuracy of Garlester’s accounts and relied on an alleged assurance that they would be released from their guarantees.
The appeal court said the allegation of interference with the sale was unsupported by meaningful evidence. The receiver was not a party to the proceedings, nor was Garlester, so any defence based on the sale had to rest on an assertion of wrongful involvement by the finance company. The court found no reason to interfere with the High Court’s conclusion that the claim was vague and lacked specific detail.
On the accounts, the High Court had considered 12 payments identified by the defendants and accepted evidence that they had probably been credited to Garlester. The appeal court also acknowledged that the finance company had made errors in figures claimed and had failed to provide a complete set of accounts for June, July and August 2012. Those shortcomings had caused genuine concern, but the defendants did not identify specific uncredited items that would establish a defence to the amounts covered by the judgments.
The High Court had nevertheless left €100,000 of the claim against Gabriel Matthews for a plenary hearing because further, unidentified account inaccuracies might reduce his liability. The Court of Appeal said that decision made adequate provision for that possibility, particularly as the finance company had not appealed the referral.
The court also rejected the argument that an alleged representation at a December 2012 meeting released the defendants from their guarantees. It said the evidence did not show that they relied on the representation and acted to their detriment, which it described as necessary to an estoppel defence. The appeal was dismissed.