Bedford Investments Ltd v Sellman [2021] EWHC 799 (Comm) (31 March 2021)

Bedford Investments Ltd v Sellman [2021] EWHC 799 (Comm) (31 March 2021)

The assignments of the loan and guarantee to the Claimant were valid and notice was properly given. The no set-off clause in the guarantee is effective and precludes the Defendant’s counterclaim as a defence. The Standard Rate interest provision is not, on the evidence, an unenforceable penalty or an onerous term. The guarantee is to be construed as providing for interest at 3% per month. There is no estoppel preventing the Claimant from enforcing the Standard Rate, and no other compelling reason exists to refuse summary judgment.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 799 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: LendInvest Security Trustees Limited; Defendant: Nick Sellman
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Summary Judgment Application on a Guarantee Claim / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the Claimant.
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Assignment of Debt, Penalty Clauses, Set Off, Interest Rate Construction, Estoppel, Onerous Terms, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Banking and Finance Law Guarantee Enforcement Assignment of Debt Penalty Clauses Set Off Interest Rate Construction Estoppel +2 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 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LendInvest Security Trustees Limited

Claimant

Nick Sellman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Summary Judgment Application on a Guarantee Claim / Judgment on Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the chain of assignments of the loan and guarantee to the Claimant is valid and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant can set off a counterclaim against the claim under the guarantee
  3. 3 Whether the Standard Rate of interest is an unenforceable penalty

Ratio Decidendi

The assignments of the loan and guarantee to the Claimant were valid and notice was properly given. The no set-off clause in the guarantee is effective and precludes the Defendant’s counterclaim as a defence. The Standard Rate interest provision is not, on the evidence, an unenforceable penalty or an onerous term. The guarantee is to be construed as providing for interest at 3% per month. There is no estoppel preventing the Claimant from enforcing the Standard Rate, and no other compelling reason exists to refuse summary judgment.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the Claimant.

Orders

  • Defendant to pay the outstanding capital and interest due under the guarantee as claimed.
  • No set-off permitted against the claim under the guarantee.