The court found that the defendant's defence was a mere denial and a sham, raising no triable issues to warrant the suit proceeding to trial. The defendant did not challenge the documentary evidence presented by the plaintiff, including the request for an overdraft, the approval letter, and account statements. The defendant's argument that the loan was to be secured by a charge, which was not executed, did not negate the existence of the overdraft facility or the debt. The defendant failed to respond to the further affidavit and did not provide any substantive evidence to contradict the plaintiff's claim. Consequently, the court held that this was a clear case for striking out the defence and entering summary judgment for the plaintiff for the amount claimed, with interest and costs.