The High Court dismissed Promontoria (Aran) Limited’s application for summary judgment against Jaszai Limited and Laszlo Fried, finding that the evidence did not establish the debt claimed from the company or Fried’s liability under a guarantee.
The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Mark Sanfey on 6 April 2021, concerned Promontoria’s claim for CHF 12,216,750.45 and $4,448.36 from Jaszai, and €7 million from Fried under an alleged guarantee. The court said the application had been heard alongside a motion in separate plenary proceedings, but the cases had not been consolidated. This judgment addressed only the summary proceedings against Jaszai and Fried.
Promontoria relied on an affidavit from Stephen McKeever, who described himself as an asset management head employed by the loan servicer, Link ASI Limited. The court applied its findings in the related plenary proceedings and held that McKeever’s evidence about the alleged debt was inadmissible hearsay. It also found that certificates of balance from the servicer were inadequate to establish what Jaszai owed.
The judge said that even if the affidavit evidence had been admissible, it did not explain how the claimed sums were calculated. The evidence did not set out the interest rate, calculation period, or whether fees or penalties were included. The court said there was no evidence that Promontoria had provided other information clarifying the calculation.
Promontoria’s counsel relied on Jaszai’s filed accounts, arguing that they showed admissions of the debt and a course of dealing. The court did not rely on those accounts: they had been exhibited in the separate plenary proceedings, not in evidence in this application. The judge also said the accounts ended on 30 April 2013 and did not adequately establish the debt after that date or dealings between Promontoria and Jaszai.
Because the court found no admissible evidence of the primary debt, it held that the guarantee claim against Fried could not succeed. The guarantee’s certificate provision referred to a certificate from a bank officer; the certificates relied on were from neither the bank nor Promontoria.
The court dismissed the application. It gave the parties 14 days from delivery of the judgment to make written submissions on the appropriate orders, particularly costs. The judgment did not determine those subsequent orders.