National Westminster Bank Plc v Binney [2011] EWHC 694 (QB) (23 March 2011)

National Westminster Bank Plc v Binney [2011] EWHC 694 (QB) (23 March 2011)

The defendant failed to prove any binding oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation qualifying or discharging the written guarantee. The written guarantee is enforceable according to its terms, and the parol evidence rule precludes consideration of alleged oral terms. The defendant's injection of funds did not discharge his liability under the guarantee.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 694
Parties
Claimant: National Westminster Bank PLC; Defendant: David Binney
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 March 2011
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (contract of Guarantee) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Parol Evidence Rule, Collateral Warranty, Estoppel
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantees Parol Evidence Rule Collateral Warranty Estoppel

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

National Westminster Bank PLC

Claimant

David Binney

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (contract of Guarantee) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation existed to qualify or discharge the written guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the parol evidence rule precludes consideration of alleged oral terms
  3. 3 Whether estoppel prevents enforcement of the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to prove any binding oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation qualifying or discharging the written guarantee. The written guarantee is enforceable according to its terms, and the parol evidence rule precludes consideration of alleged oral terms. The defendant's injection of funds did not discharge his liability under the guarantee.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for the claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay £100,000 to the claimant under the guarantee.
  • Defendant to pay interest and costs.