The High Court has refused Primeline VNE Limited’s application for summary judgment against Centz Retail Holdings Limited, finding that Centz had an arguable defence to the claim for €140,986.14 plus interest. The case is to proceed to a plenary hearing, where the disputed issues can be examined.
In a judgment delivered on 15 June 2022, Ms Justice Bolger said it was not “very clear” that Centz had no defence, the test for deciding whether to grant summary judgment or leave to defend. The court did not decide whether Primeline was owed the claimed amount or resolve the parties’ disputes about the contract.
Primeline said the claim arose from unpaid invoices for transport, storage and delivery services supplied under an agreement between the parties. It argued that Centz had not raised valid disputes under the contract and that the scheduled rate of €20 per pallet for Dublin deliveries applied. Primeline said a lower rate of €15 had been discussed only on condition that Centz provide keys and access codes to enable early-morning deliveries.
Centz disputed the debt, saying it had challenged charges at the time and had overpaid. Its evidence included correspondence about the delivery rate and a charge for office space that Centz said was not payable. The company also said the parties had agreed to a €15 Dublin delivery rate and that the contract terms were still under discussion. Primeline disputed those claims.
Justice Bolger said Centz’s affidavits and the correspondence exhibited with them provided an evidential basis for its defence. She found that the disputes were raised contemporaneously, rather than only after Primeline threatened or began proceedings, and were not merely unsupported assertions. Whether Centz’s account is ultimately accepted remains for trial.
The judge said it was not necessary or appropriate on the summary application to decide whether Primeline had complied with the contract’s dispute-resolution procedure or was entitled to stop providing services and retain Centz’s goods. Those issues remain contested and require evidence and legal submissions about the agreement’s terms.
The judgment gives an indicative view that the costs of the summary judgment motion should be costs in the cause, meaning they will be dealt with as part of the wider proceedings. The court listed the matter for a further mention on 5 July 2022 to hear submissions on costs and the final orders. The judgment does not record the outcome of that later hearing.