The Claimant applied for Summary Judgment of its amended Statement of Claim which sought declarations that a subscription agreement entered into between it and GST International was binding, that the resolution of the Board which Potential relied on making its investment is valid and that the Claimant holds three million shares in GST. The Claim and the Application were undefended.
The Court held that an application for Summary Judgment should not be treated as if it were an application for default judgment. Even if the application is unopposed the discretion presented by Civil Procedure Rule 15.2(b) means that the Court must be satisfied that there is no real prospect of a successful defence being raised to the claim being made. In the course of the hearing the Court was required to construe Section 31 of the Business Companies Act, 2004, which deals with dealings between companies and other persons.
To continue reading full articles in PDF format:
Potential Might Group Limited -v- GST International Management Ltd (December 2011)