Barclays Bank Plc v Sutton

Barclays Bank Plc v Sutton

There was a concluded agreement for the transfer of the overdraft from CSF to PFL, dependent on the bank being satisfied with security, which was met by the signing of the guarantee. There was no evidence of a concluded agreement for a fixed term loan. The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or establishing his counterclaim.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant/appellant: Mr Clive Jeremy Sutton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Collateral Contract, Condition Precedent
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantee Enforcement Summary Judgment Collateral Contract Condition Precedent

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant/respondent

Mr Clive Jeremy Sutton

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a concluded agreement for a fixed term loan between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the bank was entitled to enforce the personal guarantee signed by the defendant
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of the overdraft from CSF to PFL was valid and enforceable

Ratio Decidendi

There was a concluded agreement for the transfer of the overdraft from CSF to PFL, dependent on the bank being satisfied with security, which was met by the signing of the guarantee. There was no evidence of a concluded agreement for a fixed term loan. The defendant had no real prospect of successfully defending the claim or establishing his counterclaim.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the bank on its claim for payment under the guarantee
  • Defendant's Defence and Counterclaim struck out