Formalities and execution
12/6/20
UMRISH LTD v GILL [2020] EWHC 1513 (Ch)
The court rejected defences to a claim on personal guarantees that the guarantees had not been delivered, and that the claimant was estopped from enforcing the guarantees by having said they would not be enforced. There had been sufficient unconditional delivery by sending a scanned copy of the guarantor’s signature [85]. The estoppel argument failed on the facts but the court also doubted that promissory estoppel can be relied on in relation to conduct before there is a legal relationship between the promisor and promisee [101].
13/5/20
GO CAPITAL LTD v PHULL [2020] EWHC 1235 (Ch)
Considers when a transaction is a sham [27]. On the facts the court was not satisfied there was a triable issue that a guarantee was a sham, but there were triable issues that the guarantor’s signature had been forged, the guarantee had not been executed as a deed and whether consideration had been provided for it to operate as a contract.
17/1/20
BIOCONSTRUCT GMBH v WINSPEAR [2020] EWHC 7 (QB)
Considers weight to be given to a statement of a witness who does not attend trial [67]. Considers requirements for due execution of a deed [123]. On the facts a deed of guarantee had not been validly executed. Considers whether a defendant can be estopped by convention from denying the validity of a deed [149] and holds that as a matter of law neither of the defendants could be estopped from denying the validity of the deed.