West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Unadkat [2018] EWHC 469 (Comm) (09 March 2018)

West Bromwich Commercial Ltd v Unadkat [2018] EWHC 469 (Comm) (09 March 2018)

The Defendant failed to prove that binding oral assurances were made limiting the enforceability of the guarantees, or that any such assurances overrode the written terms. The Defendant's conduct, including repeated acknowledgments of liability and lack of objection when guarantees were enforced, was inconsistent with his pleaded case. The entire agreement clause excluded reliance on alleged oral representations. The guarantees were enforceable according to their written terms.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 469 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: West Bromwich Commercial Limited; Defendant: Mukesh Unadkat
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim on Guarantees / Trial Judgment After Remittal From Court of Appeal
Outcome
Claim allowed for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Collateral Contracts, Estoppel, Interpretation of Contracts, Enforcement of Security, Entire Agreement Clauses
Commercial Law Contract Law Banking and Finance Guarantees Collateral Contracts Estoppel Interpretation of Contracts Enforcement of Security +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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

West Bromwich Commercial Limited

Claimant

Mukesh Unadkat

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim on Guarantees / Trial Judgment After Remittal From Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether oral assurances limited the enforceability of written guarantees
  2. 2 Whether collateral warranty or estoppel arose from alleged oral representations
  3. 3 Whether guarantees were discharged or revived by subsequent conduct or documentation

Ratio Decidendi

The Defendant failed to prove that binding oral assurances were made limiting the enforceability of the guarantees, or that any such assurances overrode the written terms. The Defendant's conduct, including repeated acknowledgments of liability and lack of objection when guarantees were enforced, was inconsistent with his pleaded case. The entire agreement clause excluded reliance on alleged oral representations. The guarantees were enforceable according to their written terms.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant for £417,000 under the guarantees.
  • Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.