Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs

Triodos Bank NV v Dobbs

The guarantee executed by Mr Dobbs in 1996 did not extend to cover liabilities under the 1999 facility agreement, as the 1999 agreement was not a mere amendment or variation within the purview of the original guarantee but a substantially new and different obligation. The question of estoppel by convention could not be determined summarily and required a trial.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Triodos Bank NV; Defendant/appellant: Ashley Charles Dobbs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Scope of Guarantee, Variation of Contract, Estoppel by Convention, Summary Judgment
Contract Law Banking Law Guarantee Law Scope of Guarantee Variation of Contract Estoppel by Convention Summary Judgment

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Triodos Bank NV

Claimant/respondent

Ashley Charles Dobbs

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the guarantee executed by Mr Dobbs in 1996 extended to cover liabilities under subsequent loan agreements, specifically the 1999 facility agreement
  2. 2 Whether the replacement or variation of loan agreements brought new obligations within the scope of the original guarantee
  3. 3 Whether Mr Dobbs was estopped by convention from denying the guarantee's extension to the 1999 facility

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantee executed by Mr Dobbs in 1996 did not extend to cover liabilities under the 1999 facility agreement, as the 1999 agreement was not a mere amendment or variation within the purview of the original guarantee but a substantially new and different obligation. The question of estoppel by convention could not be determined summarily and required a trial.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Declarations made by His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC on 26 March 2002 and paragraph 1 of the order of Lewison J made on 19 May 2004 set aside.
  • Respondent to pay appellant’s costs of the appeal and below, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.