Mint Bridging Limited v Earthrise Developments Limited & Ors.

Mint Bridging Limited v Earthrise Developments Limited & Ors.

Mint did not breach its contractual obligations under the first facility; the anti set-off clause in the second facility letter is reasonable and enforceable, precluding set-off; the second facility superseded the first facility, extinguishing prior rights; Mint's certificate of indebtedness is conclusive and no manifest error is shown; judgment is entered for Mint for the certified amount.

Parties
Claimant: Mint Bridging Limited; First Defendant: Earthrise Developments Limited; Second Defendant: Mr Palmer; Third Defendant: Mr Cox; Fourth Defendant: Mrs Palmer
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
Legal Topics
Loan Facility Agreements, Personal Guarantees, Set Off Exclusion Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Conclusive Evidence Clauses, Mortgage Priority, Facility Supersession
Contract Law Commercial Law Guarantees Property Law Loan Facility Agreements Personal Guarantees Set Off Exclusion Clauses Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 +3 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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mint Bridging Limited

Claimant

Earthrise Developments Limited

First Defendant

Mr Palmer

Second Defendant

Mr Cox

Third Defendant

Mrs Palmer

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mint breached contractual obligations under the first facility by withholding funds and requiring a main contractor
  2. 2 Whether Defendants are entitled to set-off against Mint's claim
  3. 3 Whether the second facility superseded the first facility and extinguished prior rights

Ratio Decidendi

Mint did not breach its contractual obligations under the first facility; the anti set-off clause in the second facility letter is reasonable and enforceable, precluding set-off; the second facility superseded the first facility, extinguishing prior rights; Mint's certificate of indebtedness is conclusive and no manifest error is shown; judgment is entered for Mint for the certified amount.

Court Disposition

Judgment for Claimant

Orders

  • Defendants liable to Mint Bridging Limited for £625,225.97 as certified.
  • No set-off permitted against Mint's claim.