|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Supreme Court dismisses appeal from High Court, and affirms order granting summary judgment in the sum of STG£950,000 plus interest arising from a guarantee executed by the defendant, where the defendant alleged that he could not have executed the guarantee on the stated date but at a later date, on the grounds that: (a) there was little doubt that the guarantee had been executed before the stated date rather than afterwards; (b) in circumstances where a loan had been advanced to a company on terms that the guarantee in question would be given, it was questionable whether there was a defence to the claim; and (c) where the guarantee extended to present as well as future indebtedness of the principal debtor, the defendant had no real prospect of a defence.
Murphy J (nem diss): Claim commenced by summary summons - claim of STG£950K on foot of guarantee - claim disputed by defendant - denial by defendant that he signed guarantee - allegation that signatory was in Austria on business on date guarantee allegedly signed - defences raised - claim that guarantee had been executed in September 1989 rather than February - whether fair or reasonable probability of the defendant having a real or bona fide defence - whether defence was credible - guarantee part of security for loan.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
