Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
What are the implications of the recent case of Ramsay v Love which raised questions around the authority of agents to sign guarantees and whether guarantees can be signed by a ‘ghost signing’ machine?
Ramsay v Love  EWHC 65 (Ch),  All ER (D) 130 (Jan)
The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay was run, in large part, by Christopher Hutcheson. Mr Hutcheson operated a machine that automatically signed Mr Ramsay's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether Mr Ramsay would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when Mr Hutcheson had committed Mr Ramsay to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by Mr Ramsay.
Northam Worldwide Ltd (Northam) granted a lease of premises to Gordon Ramsay Holdings International Ltd (GRHI). Under the terms of that lease, Gordon Ramsay Holdings Ltd (GRH) and Gordon Ramsay himself agreed to act as guarantors. The lease had apparently been signed as a deed by Mr Ramsay and witnessed by Christopher Hutcheson , who was a director of GRHI and also Mr Ramsay's father-in-law. In July 2011 Mr Love became entitled to acquire the reversion on the lease and in November 2012 the reversion was assigned by Northam to Mr Love. In September 2011, Mr Ramsay told Mr Love that he was not bound by the guarantee.
The main question was whether Mr Ramsay was bound by the guarantee apparently given by him. Mr Ramsay contested that it was not binding as he did not sign the deed—his signature had been placed on that document by means of a signature writing machine operated by or under the direction of Mr Hutcheson. Mr Ramsay said that Mr Hutcheson did not have authority to place Mr Ramsay's apparent signature on the document. It was accepted that if Mr Ramsay had operated the machine, the signature
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
1.Banking and finance lawyer with experience in derivatives, debt capital markets, securitisation and structured finance in London and Paris
2.Likes ballet, playing the harp and holidays
3.Thinks the law is always changing!
Emma trained and qualified at Allen & Overy LLP and worked in their derivatives and structured finance teams in London and Paris. She then joined the foreign exchange prime brokerage legal team at Deutsche Bank before spending 4 ½ years with Crédit Agricole CIB advising the fixed income and derivatives desk.
0330 161 1234