Close Brothers Ltd v Ridsdale & Ors [2012] EWHC 3090 (QB) (08 November 2012)

Close Brothers Ltd v Ridsdale & Ors [2012] EWHC 3090 (QB) (08 November 2012)

The court held that the variations and extensions to the facility agreement were within the contemplation of the guarantee and that the defendants, by signing the extension letters as guarantors, consented to the variations. There was no unequivocal assurance or representation by the claimant that would found an estoppel. The release fee was properly debited in accordance with the facility agreement. Accordingly, the guarantees remain enforceable against the first and second defendants.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 3090 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Close Brothers Limited; First Defendant: Esther Louise Ridsdale; Second Defendant: Martin Ridsdale; Third Defendant: St. Georges Keep Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contract Claim / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed against the first and second defendants; guarantees enforceable.
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantees, Variation of Contract, Surety Discharge, Estoppel, Facility Agreements, Release Fees
Contract Law Banking and Finance Guarantees and Suretyship Personal Guarantees Variation of Contract Surety Discharge Estoppel Facility Agreements +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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Close Brothers Limited

Claimant

Esther Louise Ridsdale

First Defendant

Martin Ridsdale

Second Defendant

St. Georges Keep Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contract Claim / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether fundamental changes to the facility agreement discharged the guarantors' liability under the guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the guarantors consented to variations or extensions of the facility
  3. 3 Whether the release fee was properly debited

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the variations and extensions to the facility agreement were within the contemplation of the guarantee and that the defendants, by signing the extension letters as guarantors, consented to the variations. There was no unequivocal assurance or representation by the claimant that would found an estoppel. The release fee was properly debited in accordance with the facility agreement. Accordingly, the guarantees remain enforceable against the first and second defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed against the first and second defendants; guarantees enforceable.

Orders

  • Judgment for the claimant against the first and second defendants for the guaranteed sum plus interest and fees.
  • Costs to be assessed or agreed.