CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2025] EWHC 297 (Comm) (14 February 2025)

CE Energy DMCC v Bashar [2025] EWHC 297 (Comm) (14 February 2025)

Mr Bashar's guarantee is a contract of suretyship, not a demand guarantee, requiring CEE to establish UOG's default but not an arbitral award or judgment. UOG's admissions in the payment agreement are contractually binding and conclusive, and Mr Bashar is bound by them. CEE is entitled to claim the price under the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 297 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: CE Energy DMCC; Defendant: Alhaji Abdulrahman Musa Bashar; Defendant: Ultimate OIL & GAS DMCC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Summary Judgment Applications / Summary Judgment Hearing
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in both actions for CEE against Mr Bashar and UOG.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Suretyship, Contractual Estoppel, Sale of Goods Act 1979 S49, Summary Judgment, Arbitration Clauses
Commercial Law Contract Law Sale of Goods Arbitration Guarantees Suretyship Contractual Estoppel Sale of Goods Act 1979 S49 +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CE Energy DMCC

Claimant

Alhaji Abdulrahman Musa Bashar

Defendant

Ultimate OIL & GAS DMCC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Summary Judgment Applications / Summary Judgment Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature of Mr Bashar's guarantee (demand guarantee vs suretyship)
  2. 2 Binding effect of UOG's admissions in payment agreement
  3. 3 Entitlement to claim price under Sale of Goods Act 1979 s49(2)

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bashar's guarantee is a contract of suretyship, not a demand guarantee, requiring CEE to establish UOG's default but not an arbitral award or judgment. UOG's admissions in the payment agreement are contractually binding and conclusive, and Mr Bashar is bound by them. CEE is entitled to claim the price under the new spot contract pursuant to s49(2) Sale of Goods Act 1979. None of the other defences have a realistic prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in both actions for CEE against Mr Bashar and UOG.

Orders

  • Mr Bashar to pay all sums due under the personal guarantee, including amounts admitted in the payment agreement and new spot contract.
  • UOG to pay the price due under the new spot contract.