In an Action for breach of contract, the Defendants objected to the Plaintiff’s Application for Judgment by way of Summary Trial. Burrows J. noted that Rule 7.8(1) governs when a Respondent may object to such a Judgment and Rule 7.8(3) applies when an objection to such judgment must be dismissed.

The Defendants argued that the Plaintiff’s claim was too complex for Summary Trial. Burrows J. held that the complexity of the issues relating to the proper parties to the contract and the amount of damages did not make the issues “unsuitable for determination in a summary trial”.

Burrows J. noted that the litigation had begun six years prior, and was “outstanding and unresolved for far too long”; His Lordship held that Summary Trial was appropriate in the circumstances. However, Justice Burrows noted that Rule 7.9(2)(b) and (c) allows the Court to decide, after the Summary Trial has been heard that the Court is not able to make findings of fact necessary to decide the issues, or the Court may determine that it would “be unjust to decide the issues on the basis of a summary trial”. Burrows J. dismissed the Defendants’ objection.