Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v Zulman & Anor [2009] EWHC 1590 (Comm) (15 July 2009)

Investec Bank (UK) Ltd v Zulman & Anor [2009] EWHC 1590 (Comm) (15 July 2009)

Clause 3.1 of the Guarantee is clear and unambiguous: the Defendants' liability under the Guarantee only arises if Ashbury's indebtedness exceeds £2 million at the time of demand. After the £1 million deposit was applied, the indebtedness fell below this threshold, so the Guarantee is not enforceable. There was no...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1590 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Investec Bank (UK) Limited; Defendant: Arnold Zulman; Defendant: David Zulman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Defendants
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Rectification, Estoppel, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantee Enforcement Rectification Estoppel Interpretation of Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Investec Bank (UK) Limited

Claimant

Arnold Zulman

Defendant

David Zulman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper construction of clause 3.1 of the Guarantee
  2. 2 Entitlement to rectification of the Guarantee
  3. 3 Existence and effect of any oral agreement to vary the Guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 3.1 of the Guarantee is clear and unambiguous: the Defendants' liability under the Guarantee only arises if Ashbury's indebtedness exceeds £2 million at the time of demand. After the £1 million deposit was applied, the indebtedness fell below this threshold, so the Guarantee is not enforceable. There was no effective oral or written variation, no basis for estoppel, and no grounds for rectification.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Defendants

Orders

  • Claim dismissed