6 Apr 2006
Clause 8D must be given its ordinary and natural meaning; applying the corresponding date rule the day which falls 18 months after 6 December 2001 was 6 June 2003, so particulars served on 6 June 2003 were served on the wrong day and the Plaintiff's claim was barred under Clause 8D.
15 Jun 2005
Leave to appeal was refused because the disputed issues did not raise questions of sufficient general or public importance to justify the exercise of the Court of Appeal's discretion under s22(1)(b); the relevant contractual provision was unusual and unambiguous so the corresponding date rule and contra preferentem did not warrant displacing the plain meaning; additionally the claim was for unliquidated damages and thus not within the automatic right limb.
20 Jan 2005
The phrase 'the date which falls 18 months after the date of the Agreement' requires identification of a specific corresponding date; applying the corresponding date rule the date is 6 June 2003, 'before' excludes that date, so the last date for service was 5 June 2003; particulars served on 6 June 2003 were therefore one day late and the claim is barred by Clause 8(D).
6 Aug 2004
The judge held there was no evidence the change to the signature mandate was a material variation of the principal contract that would discharge the surety; the termination notice was ineffective because the guarantee required notice by all guarantors and the unilateral notice by the 3rd defendant did not suffice; a demand was made within the three month period (18 September 2001) and thus the plaintiff retained the right to call on the guarantor; no triable issues arose on the amount or other matters, so summary judgment was appropriate for the plaintiff.