Nationwide Building Society v Christie & Anor [2013] EWHC 127 (Ch) (01 February 2013)

Nationwide Building Society v Christie & Anor [2013] EWHC 127 (Ch) (01 February 2013)

None of the defences or counterclaims raised by the second defendant have a real prospect of success. The guarantee is enforceable according to its terms, was not discharged by any variation, and the claimant owed no duty to use deposit funds or act in the second defendant's interests. The counterclaim is not sustainable against the claimant as a matter of law.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 127 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Nationwide Building Society; First Defendant: Martin William Christie; Second Defendant: Robert Lester Snell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment; Application to Strike Out Counterclaim
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Guarantees, Summary Judgment, Variation of Contract, Unfair Contract Terms, Duties of Mortgagee and Receiver, Misrepresentation, Undue Influence
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantees and Indemnities Enforcement of Guarantees Summary Judgment Variation of Contract Unfair Contract Terms Duties of Mortgagee and Receiver +2 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nationwide Building Society

Claimant

Martin William Christie

First Defendant

Robert Lester Snell

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment; Application to Strike Out Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant has a real prospect of defending liability under a guarantee for debts of the first defendant
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant's counterclaim against the claimant has a real prospect of success
  3. 3 Whether the guarantee was discharged by variation of principal obligations or is unenforceable for other reasons

Ratio Decidendi

None of the defences or counterclaims raised by the second defendant have a real prospect of success. The guarantee is enforceable according to its terms, was not discharged by any variation, and the claimant owed no duty to use deposit funds or act in the second defendant's interests. The counterclaim is not sustainable against the claimant as a matter of law.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimant; counterclaim dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for Nationwide Building Society against the second defendant for the sum claimed under the guarantee.
  • Summary judgment dismissing the second defendant's counterclaim.