Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Dunne [2017] EWHC 3073 (TCC) (30 November 2017)

Multiplex Construction Europe Ltd v Dunne [2017] EWHC 3073 (TCC) (30 November 2017)

The Advance Payment Deed, as amended, constitutes a contract of indemnity imposing a primary obligation on Mr Dunne to repay £4 million to Multiplex upon DBCE's insolvency; set-offs, counterclaims, and the Insolvency Rules do not affect this liability, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3073 (TCC)
Parties
Claimant: Multiplex Construction Europe Limited (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Construction Europe Limited); Defendant: Gordon Alan Dunne
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2017
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Administration, Summary Judgment Hearing
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimant against the Defendant for £4 million.
Legal Topics
Indemnity Vs Guarantee, Summary Judgment, Insolvency, Set Off and Counterclaim, Interpretation of Commercial 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Multiplex Construction Europe Limited (formerly Brookfield Multiplex Construction Europe Limited)

Claimant

Gordon Alan Dunne

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application / High Court, Technology and Construction Court, Post Administration, Summary Judgment Hearing

  1. 1 Whether the Advance Payment Deed constitutes a contract of indemnity or guarantee
  2. 2 Whether Mr Dunne's liability is primary or secondary
  3. 3 Whether set-offs or counterclaims by DBCE affect Mr Dunne's liability

Ratio Decidendi

The Advance Payment Deed, as amended, constitutes a contract of indemnity imposing a primary obligation on Mr Dunne to repay £4 million to Multiplex upon DBCE's insolvency; set-offs, counterclaims, and the Insolvency Rules do not affect this liability, and summary judgment is appropriate.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimant against the Defendant for £4 million.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay Claimant £4 million.
  • No trial required on the merits of the claim against Mr Dunne.