The High Court granted summary judgment to BT Business Direct Limited, trading as Dabs4Work.ie, in its claim against Montara Limited, trading as Total Import Solutions, over the alleged supply of 770 laptops.
Mr Justice Ryan delivered judgment on 31 July 2013. The issue was whether Montara had established a fair or reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence, the test for allowing a case to proceed to a full hearing. The court concluded that it had not and ordered judgment on BT Business Direct’s claim. The judgment does not state the amount awarded.
BT Business Direct said the companies agreed on 5 July 2011 that it would supply 770 laptops. The court considered instant messages and emails between Montara’s Teddy Daly and Lee Williams, then employed by BT Business Direct. The messages discussed prices, including £220 per unit for 550 laptops, and the dispatch of a purchase order. The court found that the purchase order, which listed three categories totalling 770 items, supported the plaintiff’s account of an agreement.
The plaintiff also relied on a delivery docket for 7 July 2011 and information about Samsung warranty claims. The docket listed machine parts and an address in Doughcloyne Industrial Estate, Cork. The court noted that the delivery evidence and Samsung information were hearsay. It nevertheless considered the messages exchanged on 14 July, in which Williams asked whether the laptops had arrived in good time and Daly replied, “yes perfect”, especially damaging to the proposed defence.
Daly denied that Montara received the laptops. He challenged the docket’s description, address and signature, and said the company’s authorised signatories would use their full names. He also relied on a former employee’s email saying that he did not recall Daly confirming delivery and describing confusion at Dabs over stock that may have been invoiced to a different customer. Daly said that messages could be altered and that the computer he had used was no longer available for examination after the company changed systems and reformatted it.
Justice Ryan said the response did not deny the communications relied on by the plaintiff. The court considered the order and messages cogent evidence of the agreement and acknowledgment of receipt, and found that Montara’s position amounted to a bare denial rather than a sufficiently supported defence. The decision resolved the summary judgment application; the court did not send the claim to a plenary hearing.