The Court granted summary judgment to the Bank against guarantors, holding that none of the four grounds of defence had any real prospect of success. Defences based on disputing quantum through speculation about possible errors in bank records (without identifying actual errors), the existence of ongoing recovery proceedings against a third-party vendor, the alleged absence of security, and arguments that the Bank should first pursue the borrower's judgment debt against the vendor were all rejected. The Court confirmed that a guarantor's liability under guarantee terms providing for joint and several liability cannot be apportioned by reference to shareholding, and that the rule against double satisfaction adequately protects guarantors if amounts are later recovered from the borrower's liquidator.
The full text is available to signed-in members.