Getronics Holdings Emea BV & Anor v Logistic & Transport Consulting Co & Ors

Summary judgment is appropriate only where the evidence establishes that the defendant cannot make out a credible defence and the issues are fit for determination without a trial. The court must respect the requirement of a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Where credibility or disputed facts require investigation, the court should not conduct a mini-trial. It should leave those issues for trial. A defendant must identify the nature of its defence and provide evidence supporting it; bare assertions or speculation about evidence that might later emerge are insufficient.

Where the claimant’s evidence establishes an evidential basis for restitution, the legal burden remains on the claimant, but the evidential burden may require the defendant to demonstrate why the money should nevertheless be retained.

The defendants appealed against a Master’s order granting the claimants summary judgment for €4,045,374.75. The underlying claim concerned payments made under a long-running courier and logistics relationship, allegedly for services that had not been performed, had already been paid for, or were unsupported by the relevant documents.

The Master gave judgment on most heads of claim in restitution for money had and received, while refusing claims based on fraud and conspiracy. The appeal concerned eight categories of invoices and charges. The central issues were whether the evidence was sufficient for summary judgment, whether computer records constituted reliable factual evidence, and whether the defendants had raised genuine issues requiring trial.

1. Applicable approach. The appeal was determined by the ordinary principles governing summary judgment, with regard to Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Summary judgment should be refused where the issues are not fit for summary determination because a fair trial requires factual investigation.
2. Where credibility is disputed, the claimant’s evidence must reach a threshold at which the defendant’s case is incapable of belief. The court should avoid detailed document examination and a mini-trial. It must also consider whether the defendant has a credible defence and whether further evidence, not presently available, could realistically support it.
3. The claimant’s documentary and witness evidence established, on several heads, that invoices were unsupported by services performed or by the consignment records required under the parties’ established contractual arrangements. The defendant’s general assertions that further investigation might reveal a defence did not discharge the evidential burden arising from that evidence.
4. Computer-generated records, explained by a competent operator, were factual evidence rather than expert opinion. The Master was entitled to regard the evidence of Miss Stoots and the WLP records as reliable and sufficient where the opposing evidence did not materially contradict their reliability.
5. The Master was wrong to grant summary judgment for excess picking because the defendants had produced subcontractors’ invoices and supporting evidence capable of raising a triable issue. Inventory management evidence was sufficient to justify conditional leave to defend upon payment into court.
6. European and Belgian stock movements and PUDO standardisation involved conflicting factual evidence and should not be resolved summarily. Conditional leave to defend was appropriate upon payment into court of the sums claimed.
7. The appeal was allowed to those limited extents. The parties agreed that two-thirds of the appeal costs should be paid to the claimants and one-third should be costs in the cause.

1. High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): Allowed the defendants’ appeal in limited respects from the Master’s summary judgment order. Summary judgment remained in place on some heads; unconditional or conditional leave to defend was granted on others.