The High Court granted summary judgment to Fexco Asset Finance against businessman and company director Kieran Martin over liabilities guaranteed for MGK Investment Holdings Limited. The judgment, delivered by Mr Justice Max Barrett on 4 May 2018, records balances of €71,974 and €54,031.08, a combined €126,005.08, after credit for the sale of the goods.
Fexco said Martin had guaranteed MGK’s liabilities under a hire-purchase agreement and a business lease, both dated 10 June 2010. It demanded payment under the guarantees in November 2014. The judgment says Martin did not pay and Fexco applied for summary judgment, seeking the amount owing together with interest and costs.
Martin raised several objections. He said two other co-guarantors were not being sued, but the court noted that the guarantee made the guarantors’ obligations joint and several. His claim that he had been a “sleeping director” of MGK did not affect his liability under the guarantee, the judge said.
Martin also challenged the agreements’ form, saying that although they bore his signature, he would not have signed documents with so much handwriting and disputed the inclusion of “any other equipment” in the guaranteed assets. The judge held that Martin was bound by the documents he had signed. Martin also referred to difficulties recovering leased equipment because of issues with the premises’ owner; the judge noted he had not sought to join a third party to the proceedings.
On the amount claimed, Martin questioned whether the goods could have been sold for more and whether all relevant credits had been allowed. The judge said it appeared due allowance had been made. The agreements provided that the owner’s certificates of amounts due were conclusive proof absent manifest error. The court found no manifest error in the two statements of account, which certified the respective balances.
The judge reviewed the legal test for summary judgment, including the requirement for caution and the low threshold for allowing a defendant to proceed to a full hearing. He concluded that it was “very clear” Martin had no case on the application, that any issues were simple and easily determined, and that his affidavit disclosed no arguable defence. The court therefore granted the summary judgment sought. The judgment does not specify the separate sums, if any, awarded for interest or costs.