HOPE CAPITAL 2 LIMITED v MR STEPHEN MICHAEL JONES

HOPE CAPITAL 2 LIMITED v MR STEPHEN MICHAEL JONES

The defendant's defence disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success. The alleged misrepresentations were not made by the claimant, or, if made by others, were not actionable against the claimant. The guarantee's terms precluded reliance on extraneous representations, and no evidence supported the discharge of the guarantee. The proposed amended defence also failed to establish a basis for liability on the part of the claimant for statements by NCI.

Parties
Claimant: Hope Capital 2 Limited; Defendant: Stephen Michael Jones
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant
Legal Topics
Guarantee Enforcement, Summary Judgment, Misrepresentation, Agency, Strike Out Applications
Contract Law Banking and Finance Guarantee Enforcement Summary Judgment Misrepresentation Agency Strike Out Applications

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hope Capital 2 Limited

Claimant

Stephen Michael Jones

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant has a real prospect of successfully defending the claim under the guarantee
  2. 2 Whether the defence discloses reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether alleged misrepresentations or agency relationships affect liability under the guarantee

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's defence disclosed no reasonable grounds and had no real prospect of success. The alleged misrepresentations were not made by the claimant, or, if made by others, were not actionable against the claimant. The guarantee's terms precluded reliance on extraneous representations, and no evidence supported the discharge of the guarantee. The proposed amended defence also failed to establish a basis for liability on the part of the claimant for statements by NCI.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the claimant against the defendant