Four Marketing Ltd v Bradshaw

Four Marketing Ltd v Bradshaw

The personal guarantee covered all sums advanced by FML to Urbohemia, both before and after 5 February 2014, as they were repayable on demand and fell within the definition of Guaranteed Obligations under the PG. The Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014 was not intended to be binding and did not effect a discharge of the PG, nor was there any subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel to that effect. Valid demand for repayment was made. Accordingly, the PG is enforceable and the claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Parties
Claimant: Four Marketing Limited; Defendant: David Frederick Bradshaw
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 December 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the Claimant
Legal Topics
Personal Guarantee, Loan Agreements, Contract Interpretation, Discharge of Guarantee, Estoppel, Waiver
Contract Law Commercial Law 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.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Four Marketing Limited

Claimant

David Frederick Bradshaw

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

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 they were repayable on demand and fell within the definition of Guaranteed Obligations under the PG. The Term Sheet signed on 9 June 2014 was not intended to be binding and did not effect a discharge of the PG, nor was there any subsequent agreement, waiver, or estoppel to that effect. Valid demand for repayment was made. Accordingly, the PG is enforceable and the claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Claimant

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the Claimant £302,980.11 under the personal guarantee