The High Court granted Nokia (Ireland) Limited summary judgment for most of its €2,498,291.13 counterclaim against B.P.I. Telecom Limited, allowing the distributor to defend only the portion linked to a disputed 2010 credit of €908,710.
In a judgment delivered on 20 December 2012, Mr Justice Cooke said B.P.I. had shown a reasonable probability of a partial defence based on an alleged entitlement to a €751,000 credit plus VAT at 21%. That credit, relating to “sell out support” for E Series devices in the second half of 2010, was disputed and would require resolution at trial. The judge gave B.P.I. leave to defend the counterclaim to that extent.
Nokia’s counterclaim sought the outstanding balance for goods supplied under the companies’ distribution relationship. B.P.I. said the account omitted credits and also relied on a cross-claim for damages, alleging that Nokia breached the distribution agreement or a separate agreement by supplying competing distributors on more favourable prices. Those allegations were not decided in this application.
The judge rejected B.P.I.’s attempt to rely as a direct defence on a separate alleged €500,000 credit from 2011. An email setting out the proposed support made it conditional on reducing the account balance to €750,000 by 31 May 2011, a condition the court said was not met.
The court considered whether B.P.I.’s damages cross-claim could be set off against Nokia’s debt. It found the claims arose from the same commercial relationship, but declined to use its discretion to withhold judgment for the remaining debt. The judge cited the uncertain basis for the claimed damages, the timing of the cross-claims, concerns raised about B.P.I.’s financial position, and the fact that the goods had been delivered and retained. He also noted that the distribution agreement contained a clause barring deductions by set-off, though he found it did not remove the court’s discretion in this case.
The ruling determined only Nokia’s application for summary judgment on its counterclaim. B.P.I.’s claim for damages and the disputed 2010 credit remained for further proceedings; the judgment did not determine the parties’ wider allegations about pricing or breach of contract.