The Plaintiff mortgage lender who participated in the development of a golf course and related residential lands applied for Summary Judgment against the Defendant borrower and six Defendant guarantors. Master Prowse held that the existing record allowed an adjudication which was fair to the parties, and the evidence before the Court did not support the contention of the Defendant guarantors that the borrower should bear the burden of the alleged mismanagement of the project by the individual Defendant who was a shareholder of both the Plaintiff lender and Defendant borrower. The Plaintiff sought interest other than the rate set out in the mortgage. Master Prowse observed that under the Summary Judgment Rule 7.3, if the only real issue to be tried is the amount of the award, the Court may determine the amount or refer the amount for determination by a referee. Because the rate of interest was an issue of quantum and not of liability, Master Prowse proceeded to grant Summary Judgment against all Defendants and directed the Plaintiff to re-calculate the amount owing according to the interest rate set out in the mortgage. If the exact amount could not be agreed by the parties it would be determined on a future Application or referred to a referee for resolution.