Arab Banking Corporation v Saad Trading & Financial Services Company & Anor [2010] EWHC 509 (Comm) (01 March 2010)

Arab Banking Corporation v Saad Trading & Financial Services Company & Anor [2010] EWHC 509 (Comm) (01 March 2010)

The loans were made under the facility agreement as amended, not under a separate agreement. The 181-day period did not invalidate the advances as the limitation was for the bank's benefit and was waived by conduct. The guarantee remained effective and the demand, though for a marginally excessive sum, was valid. The defendants' technical defences had no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 509 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Arab Banking Corporation; First Defendant: Saad Trading & Financial Services Company; Second Defendant: Maan A Al-Saneia
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 March 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Decision
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Loan Facility Agreements, Guarantees, Summary Judgment, Jurisdiction Clauses, Waiver of Contractual Terms
Banking Law Contract Law Commercial Law Loan Facility Agreements Guarantees Summary Judgment Jurisdiction Clauses Waiver of Contractual Terms

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arab Banking Corporation

Claimant

Saad Trading & Financial Services Company

First Defendant

Maan A Al-Saneia

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Summary Judgment Application / Summary Judgment Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loans advanced were made under the facility agreement or a separate agreement
  2. 2 Whether the defendants have a real prospect of defending the claim
  3. 3 Effect of a one-day excess over the 180-day loan period

Ratio Decidendi

The loans were made under the facility agreement as amended, not under a separate agreement. The 181-day period did not invalidate the advances as the limitation was for the bank's benefit and was waived by conduct. The guarantee remained effective and the demand, though for a marginally excessive sum, was valid. The defendants' technical defences had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendants to pay the sums due under the facility agreement and guarantee.