Wayne Murfet & Anor v Property Lending LLP & Anor

Wayne Murfet & Anor v Property Lending LLP & Anor

Clause 7.2 of the Facility Letter was clear and unambiguous in allowing the lenders to demand repayment at any time, and there was no ambiguity or basis for implying terms to the contrary. The contra proferentem rule did not apply, Clause 7.2 was not a termination clause, and s.3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Wayne Murfet; Appellant: Pamela Murfet; Respondent: Property Lending LLP; Respondent: Skyred International S. A. R. L.
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Interpretation of Loan Agreements, Statutory Demands, Implied Terms, Contra Proferentem, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
Contract Law Insolvency Law Interpretation of Loan Agreements Statutory Demands Implied Terms Contra Proferentem Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wayne Murfet

Appellant

Pamela Murfet

Appellant

Property Lending LLP

Respondent

Skyred International S. A. R. L.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Clause 7.2 of the Facility Letter allowed the lenders to demand repayment at any time without reason
  2. 2 Whether the contra proferentem rule applied to Clause 7.2
  3. 3 Whether Clause 7.2 was a termination clause

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 7.2 of the Facility Letter was clear and unambiguous in allowing the lenders to demand repayment at any time, and there was no ambiguity or basis for implying terms to the contrary. The contra proferentem rule did not apply, Clause 7.2 was not a termination clause, and s.3 of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 did not apply. The appeal was dismissed as none of the grounds had merit.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed. Costs and consequential matters to be addressed separately.