The Plaintiff bank sued the Defendant and applied for Summary Judgment pursuant to Rule 7.3 after the Defendant failed to make payments on his credit card and accumulated significant debt. The Defendant unsuccessfully attempted to use “pseudolegal schemes” sold by “UK scam artists” online to clear the debt.

At the Summary Judgment Application, Master Schulz considered prior leading authorities, and confirmed that Summary Judgment can be granted if a fair and just disposition to both parties can be made out on the existing record. The question the Court needs to answer is whether there is an “issue of ‘merit’ that genuinely requires a trial,” or the claim is “so compelling that the likelihood it will succeed is very high such that it should be determined summarily”. Master Schulz noted that parties are obligated to put their best foot forward in Summary Judgment Applications, and that only the Plaintiff bank had filed an Affidavit in support of its position. After reviewing the facts available on the record, Master Schulz rejected the Defendant’s arguments, and granted Summary Judgment in the Plaintiff’s favour.

The Court considered Costs pursuant to Rule 10.29, and held that since the Plaintiff bank was entirely successful in the Action, under Rule 10.29(1) it was presumptively owed Costs. The Court held that elevated Costs were appropriate in this case, because the Defendant’s arguments had no merit and they were futile attempts to evade and retaliate against the collection of a legitimate debt.