National Westminster Bank Plc v Binney
The court found no evidence of any binding oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation limiting or releasing the guarantee. The written guarantee was not qualified by any oral terms, and the parol evidence rule applied. Mr Binney failed to prove any estoppel or full payment of £100,000 into KMC. The Bank was entitled to enforce the guarantee.
- Parties
- Claimant: National Westminster Bank PLC; Defendant: David Binney
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 23 March 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment
- Outcome
- Judgment for the Claimant
- Legal Topics
- 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.
Parties
National Westminster Bank PLC
Claimant
David Binney
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether an oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation existed to limit or release the guarantee
- 2 Whether the parol evidence rule bars consideration of alleged oral terms
- 3 Whether estoppel applies to prevent enforcement of the guarantee
Ratio Decidendi
The court found no evidence of any binding oral agreement, collateral warranty, or representation limiting or releasing the guarantee. The written guarantee was not qualified by any oral terms, and the parol evidence rule applied. Mr Binney failed to prove any estoppel or full payment of £100,000 into KMC. The Bank was entitled to enforce the guarantee.
Court Disposition
Judgment for the Claimant
Orders
- Bank entitled to recover £100,000 under the Guarantee plus interest and costs
- Counsel to agree draft order including calculation of interest and costs
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment