Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs [2005] EWCA Civ 630 (24 May 2005)

Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs [2005] EWCA Civ 630 (24 May 2005)

The 1996 guarantee did not extend to the 1999 facility agreement because the latter was not a mere amendment or variation within the purview of the original loan agreements but a substantially new and different obligation. The guarantee only covered obligations under or pursuant to the original agreements or their permissible variations, not fundamentally new agreements. Summary judgment on estoppel by convention was inappropriate as it required factual determination at trial.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 630
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Triodos Bank NV; Defendant/appellant: Ashley Charles Dobbs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (queen's Bench Division, Bristol District Registry)
Outcome
Appeal allowed. Declarations set aside. Matter to proceed to trial on estoppel by convention if pursued.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Variation of Contract, Estoppel by Convention, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantees Variation of Contract Estoppel by Convention Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Triodos Bank NV

Claimant/respondent

Ashley Charles Dobbs

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in the High Court (queen's Bench Division, Bristol District Registry)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee executed by Mr Dobbs in 1996 extended to sums due under subsequent loan agreements, particularly the 1999 facility agreement
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee covered obligations arising from agreements that replaced or substantially varied the original loan agreements
  3. 3 Whether Mr Dobbs was estopped by convention from denying the guarantee's extension to later agreements

Ratio Decidendi

The 1996 guarantee did not extend to the 1999 facility agreement because the latter was not a mere amendment or variation within the purview of the original loan agreements but a substantially new and different obligation. The guarantee only covered obligations under or pursuant to the original agreements or their permissible variations, not fundamentally new agreements. Summary judgment on estoppel by convention was inappropriate as it required factual determination at trial.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed. Declarations set aside. Matter to proceed to trial on estoppel by convention if pursued.

Orders

  • Declarations made by His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC on 26 March 2002 and paragraph 1 of the order of Lewison J made on 19 May 2004 set aside.
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal and below, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.