Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan De Nul NV (Rev 1)

Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd v Jan De Nul NV (Rev 1)

The APGs are performance bonds/demand guarantees, not classic contracts of suretyship. Payment is triggered by demand and certification, not proof of default. Changes in corporate identity and delivery dates did not discharge Meritz, and the defendants could validly make demands under the APGs after HWS ceased to exist.

Parties
Claimant: Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd; 1st Defendant: Jan de Nul NV; 2nd Defendant: Codralux SA
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Commercial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the defendants.
Legal Topics
Performance Bonds, Advance Payment Guarantees, Suretyship, Material Variation, Corporate Succession, Arbitration
Contract Law Insurance Law Commercial Law Performance Bonds Advance Payment Guarantees Suretyship Material Variation Corporate Succession +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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Meritz Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd

Claimant

Jan de Nul NV

1st Defendant

Codralux SA

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the Advance Payment Guarantees performance bonds or classic contracts of suretyship?
  2. 2 If the APGs are contracts of suretyship, has Meritz been discharged from liability due to material variations or changes in corporate identity?
  3. 3 Were the defendants able to make a contractual demand triggering liability under the APGs after HWS ceased to exist?

Ratio Decidendi

The APGs are performance bonds/demand guarantees, not classic contracts of suretyship. Payment is triggered by demand and certification, not proof of default. Changes in corporate identity and delivery dates did not discharge Meritz, and the defendants could validly make demands under the APGs after HWS ceased to exist.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the defendants.

Orders

  • Meritz to pay the sums counterclaimed under the three APGs.
  • Interest at 6% as stipulated in the APGs.