Four Marketing Ltd v Bradshaw [2016] EWHC 3292 (QB) (20 December 2016)

Four Marketing Ltd v Bradshaw [2016] EWHC 3292 (QB) (20 December 2016)

The personal guarantee covered all sums advanced by FML to Urbohemia, both before and after 5 February 2014, as the operative provisions and definitions in the guarantee were clear and unambiguous. The guarantee was not discharged by the Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014, as the Term Sheet was expressly non-binding and made discharge conditional on the execution of formal transaction documents, which never occurred. There was no subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel that discharged the guarantee. The Claimant was entitled to enforce the guarantee against the Defendant.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3292
Parties
Claimant: Four Marketing Limited; Defendant: David Frederick Bradshaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Enforcement / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantee, Loan Facility, Contract Interpretation, Discharge of Guarantee, Estoppel, Waiver
Contract Law Commercial Law Personal Guarantee Loan Facility Contract Interpretation Discharge of Guarantee Estoppel Waiver

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Four Marketing Limited

Claimant

David Frederick Bradshaw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Contract Enforcement / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the personal guarantee (PG) covered loans made by FML prior to 5 February 2014
  2. 2 Whether the PG covered loans made after 25 April 2014
  3. 3 Whether the PG was discharged by agreement between the parties on 9 June 2014

Ratio Decidendi

The personal guarantee covered all sums advanced by FML to Urbohemia, both before and after 5 February 2014, as the operative provisions and definitions in the guarantee were clear and unambiguous. The guarantee was not discharged by the Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014, as the Term Sheet was expressly non-binding and made discharge conditional on the execution of formal transaction documents, which never occurred. There was no subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel that discharged the guarantee. The Claimant was entitled to enforce the guarantee against the Defendant.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant for the sum of £302,980.11 against the Defendant under the personal guarantee.