Mybarrister Ltd v Hewetson & Ors (Rev 1)

Mybarrister Ltd v Hewetson & Ors (Rev 1)

The alleged oral collateral contract, if it exists, is a 'see to it' guarantee falling within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable absent written evidence; no sufficient estoppel is pleaded or evidenced to defeat the statute.

Parties
Claimant: MyBarrister Limited; Respondent/defendant: Guy Charles Cornelius Hewetson; Respondent/defendant: Matthew James Kesby; Respondent/defendant: Anil Shah; Respondent/defendant: Christopher Owen; Applicant/third Party: Ronald Meyer DeKoven
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 October 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application/strike Out
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of Mr DeKoven on the Additional Claim, subject to opportunity for Defendants to plead estoppel.
Legal Topics
Statute of Frauds, Guarantees, Indemnity, Proprietary Estoppel, Director Liability, Variation of Contract
Contract Law Company Law Statute of Frauds Guarantees Indemnity Proprietary Estoppel Director Liability Variation of Contract

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MyBarrister Limited

Claimant

Guy Charles Cornelius Hewetson

Respondent/defendant

Matthew James Kesby

Respondent/defendant

Anil Shah

Respondent/defendant

Christopher Owen

Respondent/defendant

Ronald Meyer DeKoven

Applicant/third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application/strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the alleged oral collateral contract is enforceable or barred by the Statute of Frauds
  2. 2 Whether the alleged obligation constitutes a guarantee or indemnity
  3. 3 Whether proprietary estoppel can circumvent the Statute of Frauds

Ratio Decidendi

The alleged oral collateral contract, if it exists, is a 'see to it' guarantee falling within the Statute of Frauds and is unenforceable absent written evidence; no sufficient estoppel is pleaded or evidenced to defeat the statute.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of Mr DeKoven on the Additional Claim, subject to opportunity for Defendants to plead estoppel.

Orders

  • Case management conference to be fixed for Defendants to apply for permission to plead estoppel.
  • If no estoppel pleading is made, the Additional Claim will be dismissed.