Barclays Bank Plc v Price & Ors

Barclays Bank Plc v Price & Ors

The guarantee required a demand to be served before liability arose. The First Demand, though for £500 more than the specified maximum, was valid as it was clear and unambiguous to a reasonable recipient that the right reserved was being exercised. The issue of service and receipt of the Second Demand raised triable issues and could not be determined summarily.

Parties
Claimant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Mr Franklin Richard Price; Defendant: Mr Simon Christopher Rees-Howell; Defendant: Mr Julian Morgan Skeens; Defendant: Mr Philip Graham Cohen; Defendant: Mr Charles Eric Gerada Azzopardi
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 October 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Demand Validity, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantee Enforcement Demand Validity Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant

Mr Franklin Richard Price

Defendant

Mr Simon Christopher Rees-Howell

Defendant

Mr Julian Morgan Skeens

Defendant

Mr Philip Graham Cohen

Defendant

Mr Charles Eric Gerada Azzopardi

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (guarantee Enforcement) / Application to Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a demand is required under the guarantee before liability arises
  2. 2 Whether the First Demand was invalid for demanding an excessive amount
  3. 3 Whether the Second Demand was validly served given an error in the address

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee required a demand to be served before liability arose. The First Demand, though for £500 more than the specified maximum, was valid as it was clear and unambiguous to a reasonable recipient that the right reserved was being exercised. The issue of service and receipt of the Second Demand raised triable issues and could not be determined summarily.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Fourth Defendant's application to strike out the claim and/or for summary judgment is dismissed.
  • Parties to liaise regarding Barclays' application to amend and costs of and occasioned by the amendments.