Mybarrister Ltd v Hewetson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 2624 (Ch) (19 October 2017)

Mybarrister Ltd v Hewetson & Ors (Rev 1) [2017] EWHC 2624 (Ch) (19 October 2017)

The alleged oral collateral contract is, on its proper construction, a 'see to it' obligation and thus a guarantee within section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, requiring writing to be enforceable. No sufficient pleaded or evidential basis exists for an estoppel to prevent reliance on the statute. The Additional Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no real prospect of success; it is struck out and/or dismissed summarily.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 2624 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: MYBARRISTER LIMITED; Defendant: Guy Charles Cornelius Hewetson; Defendant: Matthew James Kesby; Defendant: Anil Shah; Defendant: Christopher Owen; Third Party/applicant: Ronald Meyer DeKoven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Commercial/contractual Dispute With Additional Claim / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Additional Claim
Outcome
Application granted; Additional Claim struck out and/or dismissed summarily.
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Guarantee Vs Indemnity, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Directors' Personal Liability, Proprietary Estoppel
Contract Law Company Law Civil Procedure Statute of Frauds Guarantee Vs Indemnity Summary Judgment Strike Out Directors' Personal Liability +1 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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MYBARRISTER LIMITED

Claimant

Guy Charles Cornelius Hewetson

Defendant

Matthew James Kesby

Defendant

Anil Shah

Defendant

Christopher Owen

Defendant

Ronald Meyer DeKoven

Third Party/applicant

Procedural Posture

Commercial/contractual Dispute With Additional Claim / Application to Strike Out or for Summary Judgment on Additional Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the alleged oral collateral contract between Mr DeKoven and the Defendants fall within the Statute of Frauds as a guarantee?
  2. 2 Is the Additional Claim against Mr DeKoven sustainable in law or should it be struck out or summarily dismissed?
  3. 3 Can proprietary estoppel or any estoppel prevent reliance on the Statute of Frauds in this context?

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged oral collateral contract is, on its proper construction, a 'see to it' obligation and thus a guarantee within section 4 of the Statute of Frauds 1677, requiring writing to be enforceable. No sufficient pleaded or evidential basis exists for an estoppel to prevent reliance on the statute. The Additional Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action and has no real prospect of success; it is struck out and/or dismissed summarily.

Court Disposition

Application granted; Additional Claim struck out and/or dismissed summarily.

Orders

  • The Additional Claim against Mr DeKoven is struck out and/or dismissed summarily.
  • Costs to be determined as appropriate.