Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward [2004] EWHC 1798 (Ch) (23 July 2004)

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward [2004] EWHC 1798 (Ch) (23 July 2004)

The Court found that there was no binding agreement at the 23 September 1994 meeting or subsequently that varied the Facility Letter or the guarantee arrangements in the manner alleged by Mr Hayward. The evidence did not establish that the Bank agreed to waive its rights to treat a call on Mr Gardiner's guarantee as an event of default or to defer recourse to Mr Hayward's guarantee. Accordingly, Mr Hayward remained liable under his guarantees.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1798 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds TSB Bank plc; Defendant: Norman Hayward
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil (banking/guarantee Enforcement) / High Court Re Trial Following Court of Appeal Order
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Guarantees, Variation of Contract, Release of Guarantor, Events of Default, Interpretation of Facility Agreements
Banking Law Contract Law Guarantee Law Enforcement of Guarantees Variation of Contract Release of Guarantor Events of Default Interpretation of Facility Agreements

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds TSB Bank plc

Claimant

Norman Hayward

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (banking/guarantee Enforcement) / High Court Re Trial Following Court of Appeal Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement at the 23 September 1994 meeting varied the Facility Letter to affect the Defendant's guarantee liability
  2. 2 Whether a subsequent variation discharged the Defendant from his guarantee liability under the rule in Holme v Brunskill

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that there was no binding agreement at the 23 September 1994 meeting or subsequently that varied the Facility Letter or the guarantee arrangements in the manner alleged by Mr Hayward. The evidence did not establish that the Bank agreed to waive its rights to treat a call on Mr Gardiner's guarantee as an event of default or to defer recourse to Mr Hayward's guarantee. Accordingly, Mr Hayward remained liable under his guarantees.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Judgment for the Claimant for the sum claimed under the guarantees against the Defendant