Lloyds Bank Plc v Lampert & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1840 (25 November 1998)

Lloyds Bank Plc v Lampert & Anor [1998] EWCA Civ 1840 (25 November 1998)

The bank was contractually entitled to demand payment under the guarantee and bridging loan, as the side letter limiting the guarantee was cancelled by agreement and the facilities were expressly repayable on demand. The time allowed for payment was sufficient under English law, and the defendants failed to show any arguable defence or other reason for trial. There was no material misrepresentation regarding the charges.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 1840
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Lloyds Bank Plc; First Defendant/appellant: Jeffrey Lampert; Second Defendant/applicant: Vanessa Lampert
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 1998
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions)
Outcome
Appeals and application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Guarantees and Indemnities, Bank Overdraft Facilities, Demand for Repayment, Appointment of Receivers, Possession of Mortgaged Property, Summary Judgment Procedure
Banking Law Contract Law Property Law Guarantees and Indemnities Bank Overdraft Facilities Demand for Repayment Appointment of Receivers Possession of Mortgaged Property +1 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds Bank Plc

Plaintiff/respondent

Jeffrey Lampert

First Defendant/appellant

Vanessa Lampert

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeals From High Court (queen's Bench and Chancery Divisions)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank was entitled to demand payment under the guarantee and bridging loan facilities
  2. 2 Whether the side letter limiting the guarantee remained effective
  3. 3 Whether the bank was entitled to appoint receivers and seek possession of the property

Ratio Decidendi

The bank was contractually entitled to demand payment under the guarantee and bridging loan, as the side letter limiting the guarantee was cancelled by agreement and the facilities were expressly repayable on demand. The time allowed for payment was sufficient under English law, and the defendants failed to show any arguable defence or other reason for trial. There was no material misrepresentation regarding the charges.

Court Disposition

Appeals and application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeals by Mr Jeffrey Lampert and Mrs Vanessa Lampert dismissed.
  • Application for leave to appeal by Mrs Vanessa Lampert refused.