Guarantee Enforcement. The business of the claimant, Gordon Ramsay (R) was run, in large part, by H. H operated a machine that automatically signed R's signature onto a guarantee. The issue arose as to whether R would be bound by the guarantee. The Chancery Division held that when H had committed R to the guarantee, he had been acting within the wide general authority conferred on him by R.
Contract Charterparty. The charterers of four vessels claimed damages from the first to the fourth defendant registered owners of the vessels, alleging breach of charterparties by withdrawing the vessels from service. The charterers contended that the charter parties had been fixed by the fifth defendant, as agent, on behalf of the owners. The Commercial Court, in dismissing the main claim, held that there was no evidence that the fifth defendant had been authorised to conclude the charterparties on behalf of the owners. The charterers succeeded on the alternative claim against the fifth defendant, which was held liable in damages for breach of an implied warranty of authority.
Practice Pre-trial or post-judgment relief. The claimants entered into loan arrangements with the first defendant bank's predecessor. They fell into arrears and the bank subsequently appointed receivers. The claimants brought claims alleging that the bank was in breach of contract by appointing receivers. The claimants further alleged that the receivers were in breach of duty in failing to secure best price for properties. In allowing summary judgment against the claimants, the Chancery Division held that there was no evidence of the bank giving up its rights under various security documents, or varying them. The bank had had the right to appoint receivers on an unsatisfied demand. Further, the claim against the receivers had to fail on the facts.
Contract Services. The Technology and Construction Court considered the interpretation of a contract between the parties, under which the claimant companies provided services to the defendant. The issue arose as to whether the claimants would be entitled to further remuneration if they went into liquidation. The court held that the claimants would be entitled to a declaration that the contract referred to any further payment to which it would or might otherwise be entitled pursuant to the contractual provisions relating to payment.
Contract Condition. The claimant Spanish civil engineering contractor issued proceedings against the defendant Government of Gibraltar following termination of a contract for the design and construction of a road and tunnel under the runaway of Gibraltar airport. The Technology and Construction Court, in dismissing the claim, held that the claimant's breaches of contract had been sufficient and serious enough to justify termination. Further, the defendant had validity terminated the contract, although service of notice of termination had not been at the designated office.
Bank Banker-client relationship. Following the first claimant's default on a senior facilities agreement, the first defendant bank had disclosed reports to the second defendant competitor of the claimants. In considering the claimant's claims for breach of confidentiality, the Chancery Division considered that the first defendant had breached its contractual obligation of confidence and summarily assessed damages of 5,000 to reflect the amount that the first defendant would have had to pay for the work to be done if the second defendant had not been a company within the first claimant's group. The claim against the second defendant for breach of an equitable obligation of confidence was dismissed.
Judgment Enforcement. The claimant bank sought to enforce judgments obtained in the Russian courts against the defendant, S, and companies that he controlled, in the English court. The Commercial Court held that S had no prospect of successfully defending enforcement of the principal sums and contractual interest claimed in the enforcement proceedings. Therefore, judgment would be given against him.
Landlord and tenant Lease. When a lessee went into administration, the claimant lessor sought to recover unpaid rent from the defendant surety. The judge found that a licence to alter which had been granted to the lessee without the defendant's knowledge had amounted to a variation of the lease which had had the clear potential to increase the lessee's obligations. Accordingly the rule in Holme v Brunskill had applied and the defendant was discharged from its obligations. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, dismissed the claimant's appeal as the judge, on the true construction of the lease, had been correct.
Equity Exoneration. The defendants owned a house jointly. The first defendant was the director of a company, which took a loan from Barclays Bank that the company guaranteed. That loan was also secured by way of a second charge over the defendants' house, and they were both mortgagors. The claimant issued proceedings against the first defendant, seeking to recover sums owed to him, which was granted and secured by way of a charging order against the first defendant's share of the property. The claimant applied to the county court for an order that the charging order come out of the first defendant's share of the sale proceeds after Barclays had been paid from both defendants' share. The application was dismissed. The Chancery Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the second defendant was entitled to indemnification from the first defendant against her liability to Barclays. The second defendant, as sub-surety, was entitled to the right of exoneration by the first defendant, as surety.
Sale of land Contract. The proceedings concerned the alleged purchase by the claimants of shares in rooms in a hotel block. The six claimants sought declarations that there had been no contract between them and the defendant company or, alternatively, alternatively recision of any contract, for the purchase of the leases, and for the refund of deposits paid by them to the defendant. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, valid contracts had existed between the defendant and four of the six claimants. The second and third defendants' contracts would not be considered valid, as they had never become parties to the proposed contracts.