Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor [2020] EWHC 2137 (Comm) (23 July 2020)

Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Simpson & Anor [2020] EWHC 2137 (Comm) (23 July 2020)

The guarantees executed by the defendants are all-monies guarantees covering the liabilities of the customer to the bank, including those arising under the March 2013 facility agreement. The deed of assignment effectively assigned the bank's rights under the facility and guarantees to the claimant. The July 2013 facility letter constituted a renewal or extension of the March 2013 facility and was accepted by conduct. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed under the guarantees.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2137 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited; Defendant: Scott Simpson; Defendant: Tracy Simpson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim Under Guarantees / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Guarantees, Assignment of Debt, Indemnity Costs, Facility Agreements, Notice of Assignment
Commercial Law Banking Law Contract Law Guarantees Assignment of Debt Indemnity Costs Facility Agreements Notice of Assignment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited

Claimant

Scott Simpson

Defendant

Tracy Simpson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim Under Guarantees / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the deed of assignment effectively assigned the relevant facility and guarantees to the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the guarantees cover the liabilities claimed
  3. 3 Whether the July 2013 facility letter was a renewal or extension of the March 2013 facility

Ratio Decidendi

The guarantees executed by the defendants are all-monies guarantees covering the liabilities of the customer to the bank, including those arising under the March 2013 facility agreement. The deed of assignment effectively assigned the bank's rights under the facility and guarantees to the claimant. The July 2013 facility letter constituted a renewal or extension of the March 2013 facility and was accepted by conduct. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sum claimed under the guarantees.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Defendants to pay £415,075.12 to the claimant (inclusive of interest)
  • Defendants to pay claimant's costs on an indemnity basis under the guarantee and CPR Part 44.5