Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan & Ors [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm) (13 March 2013)

Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan & Ors [2013] EWHC 482 (Comm) (13 March 2013)

The Bank was entitled to rely on the conditions precedent in the Facility Agreement, including satisfactory property valuations and Credit Risk Management approval. The Defendants failed to establish actionable misrepresentation or breach sufficient to set aside the agreements or defeat the Bank's claims. The guarantee was not discharged. Counterclaims did not provide a valid defence to the debt and possession claims. Statutory relief was not established.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 482 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA; Defendants: Gulzar Ahmed Khan & Others
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Split Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; Defendants' counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Facility Agreement, Misrepresentation, Guarantee, Default Interest, Unfair Contract Terms, Breach of Confidence
Banking Law Contract Law Property Law Consumer Protection Facility Agreement Misrepresentation Guarantee Default Interest +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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA

Claimant

Gulzar Ahmed Khan & Others

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Final Judgment After Split Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Breach of Facility Agreement regarding Tranche B drawdown
  2. 2 Actionable pre-facility misrepresentations
  3. 3 Validity and effect of oral and supplemental agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank was entitled to rely on the conditions precedent in the Facility Agreement, including satisfactory property valuations and Credit Risk Management approval. The Defendants failed to establish actionable misrepresentation or breach sufficient to set aside the agreements or defeat the Bank's claims. The guarantee was not discharged. Counterclaims did not provide a valid defence to the debt and possession claims. Statutory relief was not established.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; Defendants' counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay outstanding debt to the Bank.
  • Bank entitled to possession of charged properties.