Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan & Ors

Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA v Khan & Ors

The Bank was entitled to refuse full drawdown under the Facility Agreement due to dissatisfaction with the hope value element in the property valuation, acting within its contractual discretion and not capriciously or irrationally. No actionable misrepresentation was made, and supplemental agreements were valid and enforceable. Default interest is payable at 3% above the Bank's cost of funding on the entire outstanding principal and interest upon default. The Bank may rely on its own property valuations for security shortfall. No statutory relief under CCA, UCTA, or UTCCR is available; the impugned terms are reasonable and negotiated. No breach of confidence occurred. Counterclaims and...

Parties
Claimant: Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA; Defendant: Gulzar Ahmed Khan; Defendant: Waqar Khan; Defendant: Ammar Khan; Defendant: Razia Sultana; Defendant: Sehr Asher; Corporate Defendant: Camden Invest & Trade Limited; Corporate Defendant: Octavia Resources Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt and Possession / Final Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Facility Agreements, Default Interest, Misrepresentation, Statutory Relief, Breach of Confidence, Valuation Clauses, Guarantees, Unfair Contract Terms
Banking Law Contract Law Property Law Facility Agreements Default Interest Misrepresentation Statutory Relief Breach of Confidence +3 more

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 7 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deutsche Bank (Suisse) SA

Claimant

Gulzar Ahmed Khan

Defendant

Waqar Khan

Defendant

Ammar Khan

Defendant

Razia Sultana

Defendant

Sehr Asher

Defendant

Camden Invest & Trade Limited

Corporate Defendant

Octavia Resources Limited

Corporate Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt and Possession / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Bank breached the Facility Agreement by failing to advance the full Tranche B drawdown
  2. 2 Whether actionable pre-facility misrepresentations were made
  3. 3 Validity and effect of the 17 August oral agreement and the Undertaking

Ratio Decidendi

The Bank was entitled to refuse full drawdown under the Facility Agreement due to dissatisfaction with the hope value element in the property valuation, acting within its contractual discretion and not capriciously or irrationally. No actionable misrepresentation was made, and supplemental agreements were valid and enforceable. Default interest is payable at 3% above the Bank's cost of funding on the entire outstanding principal and interest upon default. The Bank may rely on its own property valuations for security shortfall. No statutory relief under CCA, UCTA, or UTCCR is available; the impugned terms are reasonable and negotiated. No breach of confidence occurred. Counterclaims and...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendants liable for outstanding debt under Facility Agreement
  • Bank entitled to possession of charged properties