Katara Hospitality v Guez & Anor [2018] EWHC 3063 (Comm) (23 November 2018)

Katara Hospitality v Guez & Anor [2018] EWHC 3063 (Comm) (23 November 2018)

The powers of attorney executed by the defendants were not validly executed as deeds under English law and therefore did not authorise Mr Visan to execute the Deed on their behalf. The authority conferred was limited to signing agreed documents in connection with completion, not to agreeing new commercial terms or imposing new liabilities. The Deed imposed an entirely new liability not contemplated or agreed by the defendants and was not for their benefit. Accordingly, the Deed or Contract is not enforceable against the defendants.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 3063 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Katara Hospitality; Defendant: Gerard Guez; Defendant: Jacqueline Rose
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Powers of Attorney, Authority of Agents, Execution of Deeds, Personal Guarantees, Interpretation of Contracts
Contract Law Agency Law Commercial Law Powers of Attorney Authority of Agents Execution of Deeds Personal Guarantees Interpretation of Contracts

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katara Hospitality

Claimant

Gerard Guez

Defendant

Jacqueline Rose

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the powers of attorney executed by the defendants authorised Mr Visan to enter into the Deed or Contract on their behalf
  2. 2 Whether the powers of attorney were validly executed as deeds under English law
  3. 3 Whether the Deed or Contract is enforceable against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The powers of attorney executed by the defendants were not validly executed as deeds under English law and therefore did not authorise Mr Visan to execute the Deed on their behalf. The authority conferred was limited to signing agreed documents in connection with completion, not to agreeing new commercial terms or imposing new liabilities. The Deed imposed an entirely new liability not contemplated or agreed by the defendants and was not for their benefit. Accordingly, the Deed or Contract is not enforceable against the defendants.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • The claim against the defendants is dismissed.