Four Marketing Ltd v Bradshaw [2016] EWHC 3292 (QB) (20 December 2016)
The personal guarantee executed by Mr Bradshaw in favour of FML covered all advances made to Urbohemia, both before and after 5 February 2014, as all such sums were repayable on demand and fell within the definition of 'Guaranteed Obligations' under the PG. The Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014 was expressly non-binding and made the extinguishing of the PG conditional upon the execution of formal transaction documents, which never occurred. There was no subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel that discharged the PG. A valid demand for repayment was made. Accordingly, the PG remains enforceable for the sums claimed.
- Citation
- [2016] EWHC 3292 (QB)
- 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 Agreements, 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.
Parties
Four Marketing Limited
Claimant
David Frederick Bradshaw
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Commercial Contract Enforcement / High Court Trial Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the personal guarantee (PG) covered loans made by FML prior to 5 February 2014
- 2 Whether the PG covered loans made after 25 April 2014
- 3 Whether the PG was discharged by agreement between the parties on 9 June 2014
Ratio Decidendi
The personal guarantee executed by Mr Bradshaw in favour of FML covered all advances made to Urbohemia, both before and after 5 February 2014, as all such sums were repayable on demand and fell within the definition of 'Guaranteed Obligations' under the PG. The Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014 was expressly non-binding and made the extinguishing of the PG conditional upon the execution of formal transaction documents, which never occurred. There was no subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel that discharged the PG. A valid demand for repayment was made. Accordingly, the PG remains enforceable for the sums claimed.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed
Orders
- Judgment for the Claimant for the sum of £302,980.11 against the Defendant under the personal guarantee.
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