Actionstrength Ltd (t/a Vital Resources) v International Glass Engineering IN Gl EN SPA & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1477 (10 October 2001)

Actionstrength Ltd (t/a Vital Resources) v International Glass Engineering IN Gl EN SPA & Anor [2001] EWCA Civ 1477 (10 October 2001)

The alleged oral agreement, even if construed most favourably to the respondent, imposed only a secondary liability on the appellant to answer for the debt of another (Inglen) and is therefore a guarantee within s.4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, requiring writing. The absence of writing renders the agreement unenforceable. The promise was not limited to a specific asset in a way that would take it outside the Statute. Estoppel does not apply on these facts.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1477
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Actionstrength Limited (trading as Vital Resources); First Defendant: International Glass Engineering IN. GL. EN S. P. A.; Second Defendant/appellant: Saint-Gobain Glass UK Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 October 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Application Under CPR 24.2
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Claim against the appellant struck out.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Statute of Frauds, Summary Judgment, Estoppel
Contract Law Civil Procedure Guarantees Statute of Frauds Summary Judgment Estoppel

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Actionstrength Limited (trading as Vital Resources)

Claimant/respondent

International Glass Engineering IN. GL. EN S. P. A.

First Defendant

Saint-Gobain Glass UK Limited

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment Application Under CPR 24.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged oral agreement constituted a guarantee within s.4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677 and is unenforceable for lack of writing
  2. 2 Whether the Statute of Frauds applies where the promise is to pay out of a specific fund or asset
  3. 3 Whether estoppel can prevent reliance on the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged oral agreement, even if construed most favourably to the respondent, imposed only a secondary liability on the appellant to answer for the debt of another (Inglen) and is therefore a guarantee within s.4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, requiring writing. The absence of writing renders the agreement unenforceable. The promise was not limited to a specific asset in a way that would take it outside the Statute. Estoppel does not apply on these facts.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Claim against the appellant struck out.

Orders

  • The claim against the appellant is struck out.
  • The appellant to have the costs of the application including this appeal, the action and the Part 20 proceedings against Inglen.