Harvey v Dunbar Assets Plc

Harvey v Dunbar Assets Plc

On its true construction, the guarantee was conditional upon all named intended guarantors signing. There was nothing in the guarantee's wording to displace this condition. Therefore, the appellant was not liable under the guarantee if one intended guarantor (Mr Lenney) did not sign.

Parties
Appellant: John Spencer Harvey; Respondent: Dunbar Assets PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Joint and Several Guarantees, Conditional Liability of Guarantors, Construction of Guarantee Instruments

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Spencer Harvey

Appellant

Dunbar Assets PLC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

  1. 1 Whether a signatory to a composite joint and several guarantee is liable if one of the intended co-guarantors did not sign the instrument.

Ratio Decidendi

On its true construction, the guarantee was conditional upon all named intended guarantors signing. There was nothing in the guarantee's wording to displace this condition. Therefore, the appellant was not liable under the guarantee if one intended guarantor (Mr Lenney) did not sign.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Statutory demand against Mr Harvey set aside.