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
Printer Friendly Version
Patrick Selley, bank guarantee & financial dispute specialist and consultant solicitor, Keystone Law, discusses the key cases and developments in relation to guarantees over the past 12 months.
Ashwood Enterprises Ltd v Governor and the Company of the Bank of Ireland  EWHC 2624 (Ch)
The rule in Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495 does not apply to ‘all moneys’ guarantees—whether a guarantee is in fact an ‘all moneys’ guarantee will depend on the interpretation of the guarantee itself and the surrounding circumstances (see Bank of Baroda v Patel  1 Lloyd’s Reports 391, where a separate facility letter was considered to be the principal document).
Recently, in National Merchant Buying Society v Bellamy  EWCA Civ 452,  2 All ER (Comm) 674, the Court of Appeal found that the drafting of the guarantee had been clear and that it had been drafted to cover anything due or to become due, without limit. It was held that a contract of guarantee is first and foremost a contract and ought to be construed as such, thereby settling this issue (see Paget’s Law of Banking at c 18, pt 2).
In Ashwood, the High Court applied established principles of construction to determine the scope of an all monies clause in a third-party legal charge (TPLC). The court was required to determine preliminary issues concerning the claimants’ liability under a TPLC, which was an all monies clause expressed to secure the debtors’ obligations.
Where the court is asked to construe a provision in a contract that can have more than one possible meaning, the meaning that is consistent with commercial common sense is to be preferred (Rainy Sky v Kookmin Bank  UKSC 50,  1 All ER 1137 followed). This decision is helpful in confirming that, akin to the decision inBellamy, unless the factual background to a contract shows that the ordinary meaning cannot be given to the words in the contract or that there is an ambiguity, the ordinary meaning of those words will prevail. Consequently, it stops references to negotiations and other background when interpreting a written contract.
Ramsay v Love  EWHC 65 (Ch),  All ER (D) 130 (Jan)
The use of ghostwriters by celebrities to pen autobiographies is widely known and generally accepted. However, using a ghost writer to sign a personal guarantee—thereby creating a legal obligation to pay over £600,000—is precisely what happened to celebrity chef Gordon Ramsay. The High Court delivered its judgment in January 2015.
The ghostwriter in question was a ghostwriter manual feed signature machine. In this case, it was found by the court that Ramsay gave a wide general authority to his father-in-law, Christopher Hutcheson, to conduct the business of Ramsay’s companies and, indeed, Ramsay’s own business affairs. It was also held that it was expressly understood that Ramsay would provide personal guarantees of leases of premises where this was a business requirement. It was found that Mr Ramsay was not always aware of the detail of specific business transactions.
Mr Hutcheson, pursuant to this particular general authority, used the machine to place Ramsay’s ‘signature’ on a lease and on a personal guarantee contained within it. Ramsay contested the validity of the guarantee, and lost after a trial that lasted over a week. The fact that Ramsay was not holding the pen and was not even there when it was signed mattered not. It was signed on his behalf and pursuant to his authority. The Statute of Frauds 1677 requires a guarantee to be evidenced in writing and signed by or on behalf of the guarantor.
These cases do not represent a sea-change in terms of practical approach, but in terms of take-away points for lawyers:
There is nothing noticeable at the moment—the law in this area is settled. The last case that really decided anything was Bellamy back in 2013.
The whole area of financial mis-selling is far from over. Currently, interest rate hedging products, be they swaps, caps or collars, are very much under consideration by the Financial Conduct Authority and there is much litigation concerning consequential losses in the pipeline. There is also a very large looming cloud involving tailored business loans, where the documentation contained embedded interest rate swaps without signature of a separate swap contract. Much of the pipeline litigation on behalf of borrowers will inevitably involve allegations of deliberate misrepresentation. Where personal guarantees have been given by business owners, then it is highly likely that the same representations will have been made to business owners in their capacity as prospective guarantors. Should allegations of misrepresentation be upheld by the courts, then we are likely to see guarantees defended on the basis that they have been discharged having been induced by misrepresentation.
Patrick Selley would like to thank Andrew Maguire of St Philips Chambers for his help in the preparation of this article. For further information about Patrick Selley, click here for his website and here for his profile on Keystone Law.
Interviewed by Duncan Wood.
The views expressed by our Legal Analysis interviewees are not necessarily those of the proprietor.
0330 161 1234