The High Court has declined to grant summary judgment in a dispute over €239,636.49 claimed by till-roll supplier Kempis Rolls Limited from sole trader Maura Hogan, directing that the case proceed to a plenary hearing.
In a judgment delivered on 13 March 2017, Mr Justice Eagar said disputes about whether Kempis held a dominant position in the market and about Hogan’s alleged reliance on the company’s representations could only be resolved at a full hearing. The court said Hogan’s defence was not fanciful and was based on documentation. It did not determine those disputed issues or decide the underlying claim.
Kempis sought summary judgment for money it said had been due since September 2014. An affidavit from its operations manager, Keith Molloy, said Hogan had bought till rolls from the company for years and had agreed in 2015 that €227,364.90 was then owing. The company said it had accepted a reduced sum to settle the arrears, and argued she had no bona fide defence.
Hogan said she intended to defend the claim and bring a counterclaim. She alleged that Kempis abused a dominant market position by charging too much for printed rolls and telling her that cheaper UK alternatives would not meet the required quality. She said she later found a UK product she considered suitable at a lower price. She also alleged that delivery problems after Kempis changed to An Post damaged her business relationship with Dunnes Stores, and that a promised reduction for blank rolls was not applied.
Molloy disputed her account. He said other suppliers were available, the prices reflected business and paper-cost considerations, and the delivery change followed an increase in the previous provider’s charges. He also disputed that delivery problems or price increases ended Hogan’s Dunnes Stores contract, saying Kempis stopped working with her because of the debt. These were competing affidavit accounts, not findings by the court.
Applying the test for summary judgment, the judge said the court must consider whether it is very clear that a defendant has no case, and that factual disputes supported by evidence may require a trial. He directed Kempis to serve its statement of claim within four weeks after the order was perfected and Hogan to lodge her defence within a further four weeks. The costs of the summary judgment application were reserved to the trial.