The High Court has ruled that a full hearing will be granted to both a previous Spar supermarket operator and his lawyer spouse concerning their allegations against the franchise proprietors. The couple insist they were misled about the duration of personal guarantees tied to their goods supply credit agreement by the Spar franchise owners.
BWG Foods Unlimited Company filed a lawsuit against Sean and Bernadette Glynn, stating that the couple provided personal guarantees covering any debt that their Spar outlet might incur. For 12 years, since 2005, the former ran a Spar franchise in Oranmore, Co Galway’s Unit 1, Bluebell Woods. His spouse was practising law next door and both were directors of a company known as Glynnco Ltd.
In February 2017, Glynnco ceased its operations and was in debt for goods they had received worth €63,000. Three years later, the Spar Franchise owners, BWG, filed a case concerning this outstanding amount, and in 2023, a summary judgment of €63,655 was granted against the Glynns by the Circuit Court.
Upon appeal to the High Court, Mr Justice Conleth Bradley overruled the previous order, stating a good chance for the Glynns having a justifiable defence against BWG’s claim.
BWG contended that the Glynns, operating as company directors, had issued personal guarantees shortly after their trading/credit agreement for the supply of goods; hence, a summary judgment should be rendered on them. However, the Glynns pointed out that the goods supply agreement was a separate contract, and it was not contingent upon their signing of personal guarantees.
Their argument claimed that BWG didn’t mention a personal guarantee clause during or at the time of the agreement’s signing on the 1st of April, 2005. The couple further argued that BWG’s representative, Sean Carter, visited their residence three days later, following Ms Glynn’s query about the sudden request for personal guarantees.
Mr Carter clarified that the guarantees were just for a short time, citing the Spar store as a new business without a credit history. However, the Glynns insisted Mr Carter only assured them the guarantees would only be needed for around two to three years, which became the foundation for their agreement to sign them.
The Glynns put their signature on an amended private guarantee on April 11th following Mr Carter’s revisit, claiming an initial oversight. This mistake involved the Glynns guaranteeing to resolve their personal financial obligations, not those of their firm, as stated in the initial document. The Glynns argued that the private assurance was secured under alleged false pretences by Mr Carter, implying it was only required temporarily for a nascent business.
There were certain issues that Mr Justice Bradley stated would necessitate a comprehensive review. These included the likelihood that valuable evidence supporting the Glynns could surface if a full-scale trial proceeded in the Circuit Court with verbal testimonies. Certain factors such as the commercial/credit agreement they agreed upon not explicitly stating the necessity for a personal assurance were included in these issues.
The judge mentioned he was ready to revoke the Circuit Court decision and revert it back for a detailed review.