Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Akrill

Bank Leumi (UK) Plc v Akrill

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in finding that Mr Akrill's defences were wholly implausible and incapable of belief without a trial. The factual disputes regarding the alleged representations and the nature of the agreement post-30 November 2011 required further consideration. However, the defences based on estoppel by convention were unsustainable as a matter of law due to lack of shared assumption communicated between the parties.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Bank Leumi (UK) plc; Defendant/appellant: Philip Robert Akrill
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court; Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment set aside; conditional leave to defend granted; matter remitted to High Court to determine appropriate conditions.
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantees, Summary Judgment, Collateral Warranty, Misrepresentation, Estoppel by Convention
Banking Law Contract Law Personal Guarantees Summary Judgment Collateral Warranty Misrepresentation Estoppel by Convention

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank Leumi (UK) plc

Claimant/respondent

Philip Robert Akrill

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in High Court; Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral representations by the Bank's officer created collateral warranties or misrepresentations limiting enforcement of personal guarantees
  2. 2 Whether the Bank was estopped by convention or implied agreement from demanding repayment without reasonable notice
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given factual disputes

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge erred in finding that Mr Akrill's defences were wholly implausible and incapable of belief without a trial. The factual disputes regarding the alleged representations and the nature of the agreement post-30 November 2011 required further consideration. However, the defences based on estoppel by convention were unsustainable as a matter of law due to lack of shared assumption communicated between the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; summary judgment set aside; conditional leave to defend granted; matter remitted to High Court to determine appropriate conditions.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed to the extent indicated.
  • Application remitted to the High Court for consideration of appropriate conditions for leave to defend.