Euro Securities & Finance Ltd v Barrett & Ors [2023] EWHC 51 (Ch) (11 January 2023)

Euro Securities & Finance Ltd v Barrett & Ors [2023] EWHC 51 (Ch) (11 January 2023)

The Guarantee was not validly executed as a deed because the Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that all Defendants signed in the presence of the attesting witness as required by s.1 LPMPA. The Defendants are not estopped from denying validity, as there was no deliberate concealment by Mr Weatherer and denial is not unconscionable in the circumstances.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 51 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Euro Securities & Finance LTD; Defendant: Stephen Barrett; Defendant: Matthew Brereton; Defendant: John Mason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim (preliminary Issue) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claimant's preliminary issue claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Execution of Deeds, Guarantees, Limitation Periods, Estoppel
Commercial Law Property Law Contract Law Execution of Deeds Guarantees Limitation Periods Estoppel

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

Parties

Euro Securities & Finance LTD

Claimant

Stephen Barrett

Defendant

Matthew Brereton

Defendant

John Mason

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim (preliminary Issue) / Judgment on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Guarantee dated 18th September 2008 properly executed as a deed under s.1 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989?
  2. 2 Are the Defendants estopped from denying validity of the Guarantee as a deed?

Ratio Decidendi

The Guarantee was not validly executed as a deed because the Claimant failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that all Defendants signed in the presence of the attesting witness as required by s.1 LPMPA. The Defendants are not estopped from denying validity, as there was no deliberate concealment by Mr Weatherer and denial is not unconscionable in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Claimant's preliminary issue claim dismissed

Orders

  • Guarantee not validly executed as a deed under s.1 LPMPA
  • Defendants not estopped from denying validity of Guarantee