Katara Hospitality v Guez & Anor

Katara Hospitality v Guez & Anor

The powers of attorney did not authorise Mr Visan to enter into the Deed or contract on behalf of the defendants, as they were limited to signing documents agreed by the defendants and did not extend to agreeing new commercial undertakings. The Deed was not validly executed as a deed by the defendants, and the undertakings were not for their benefit. No contract was formed binding the defendants to the undertakings in the Deed, whether partly in writing or by conduct.

Parties
Claimant: Katara Hospitality; Defendant: Gerard Guez; Defendant: Jacqueline Rose
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Powers of Attorney, Execution of Deeds, Authority of Agents, Consideration, Joint and Several Liability
Contract Law Agency Law Powers of Attorney Execution of Deeds Authority of Agents Consideration Joint and Several Liability

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Katara Hospitality

Claimant

Gerard Guez

Defendant

Jacqueline Rose

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial 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 Deed was validly executed and binding on the defendants;
  3. 3 Whether a contract was formed, partly in writing and partly by conduct, binding the defendants to the undertakings in the Deed;

Ratio Decidendi

The powers of attorney did not authorise Mr Visan to enter into the Deed or contract on behalf of the defendants, as they were limited to signing documents agreed by the defendants and did not extend to agreeing new commercial undertakings. The Deed was not validly executed as a deed by the defendants, and the undertakings were not for their benefit. No contract was formed binding the defendants to the undertakings in the Deed, whether partly in writing or by conduct.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed