Finch & Anor v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors

Finch & Anor v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc & Ors

The Bank did not owe BHL an advisory duty in contract or tort regarding clause 6.10, did not make a negligent misrepresentation, and did not enter into a collateral agreement to provide further funding. The guarantees are enforceable; no estoppel or collateral contract arises from the Bank's representations, and the claimants are precluded from relying on any oral or informal arrangement by the written terms of the guarantees.

Parties
Bank Claim Claimant / Guarantee Claim Defendant: Stephen Frederick Finch; Bank Claim Claimant: Omnia-Chem Limited; Bank Claim Defendant: Lloyds TSB Bank PLC; Guarantee Claim Claimant: Promontoria Holding 87 BV; Guarantee Claim Defendant: Paul Kenneth Abbott; Guarantee Claim Defendant: Andrew Runnacles Chadwick; Guarantee Claim Defendant: David John Schofield; Guarantee Claim Defendant: Scott Graeme Cairns
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (banking/commercial) / Judgment After Full Trial
Outcome
Bank Claim dismissed; Guarantee Claim succeeds.
Legal Topics
Bank's Duty of Care, Misrepresentation, Guarantee Enforcement, Collateral Contract, Estoppel, Implied Terms, Professional Advice, Causation
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Bank's Duty of Care Misrepresentation Guarantee Enforcement Collateral Contract Estoppel +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Frederick Finch

Bank Claim Claimant / Guarantee Claim Defendant

Omnia-Chem Limited

Bank Claim Claimant

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

Bank Claim Defendant

Promontoria Holding 87 BV

Guarantee Claim Claimant

Paul Kenneth Abbott

Guarantee Claim Defendant

Andrew Runnacles Chadwick

Guarantee Claim Defendant

David John Schofield

Guarantee Claim Defendant

Scott Graeme Cairns

Guarantee Claim Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (banking/commercial) / Judgment After Full Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Bank owe BHL an advisory obligation in contract or tort?
  2. 2 Did the Bank breach any such duty by failing to explain clause 6.10?
  3. 3 Was there a negligent misrepresentation that the loan was tailored to BHL's needs?

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank did not owe BHL an advisory duty in contract or tort regarding clause 6.10, did not make a negligent misrepresentation, and did not enter into a collateral agreement to provide further funding. The guarantees are enforceable; no estoppel or collateral contract arises from the Bank's representations, and the claimants are precluded from relying on any oral or informal arrangement by the written terms of the guarantees.

Court Disposition

Bank Claim dismissed; Guarantee Claim succeeds.

Orders

  • Bank Claim dismissed in full.
  • Guarantee Claim allowed; guarantees enforceable against defendants.