Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited v Harjit Bambhra

Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited v Harjit Bambhra

The defendant's amended defence disclosed no reasonable grounds for defending the claim under the guarantee. The guarantee covered all financial obligations of the company to the claimant, including increases in credit limit, and was not limited by the credit limit or subject to a duty to review the company's account. No duty of care was owed by the claimant to the defendant as guarantor. The construction of the guarantee advanced by the defendant had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the claimant on the relevant paragraphs of the defence and permission to amend or add a counterclaim was refused.

Parties
Claimant: Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited; Defendant: Harjit Bambhra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/contract) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Application for Permission to Amend Defence and Add Counterclaim
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant on the relevant paragraphs of the defence; permission to amend or add a counterclaim refused.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Construction of Contracts, Directors' Duties, Set Off, Counterclaim
Contract Law Commercial Law Guarantees Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Construction of Contracts Directors' Duties Set Off +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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Travis Perkins Trading Company Limited

Claimant

Harjit Bambhra

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/contract) / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment; Application for Permission to Amend Defence and Add Counterclaim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's amended defence discloses any reasonable grounds for defending the claim under a personal guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the guarantee was discharged by a material variation or change in scope
  3. 3 Proper construction of the guarantee and its limitation, if any, by credit limit increases

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's amended defence disclosed no reasonable grounds for defending the claim under the guarantee. The guarantee covered all financial obligations of the company to the claimant, including increases in credit limit, and was not limited by the credit limit or subject to a duty to review the company's account. No duty of care was owed by the claimant to the defendant as guarantor. The construction of the guarantee advanced by the defendant had no real prospect of success. Summary judgment was granted in favour of the claimant on the relevant paragraphs of the defence and permission to amend or add a counterclaim was refused.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the claimant on the relevant paragraphs of the defence; permission to amend or add a counterclaim refused.

Orders

  • Strike out of paragraphs 5, 6.2–6.10, 6.13, 10.3, 10.4, 10.6a, 10.6b, 6.13, 19 and 20 of the defence/amended defence
  • Summary judgment granted in respect of paragraphs 6.12, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6c–f, 10.9, 10.10, 10.11, 10.12, 12, 12A and 21–24 of the defence/amended defence