Bank Notes

D - Demand

19/3/20

LOMBARD NORTH CENTRAL PLC v EUROPEAN SKYJETS LTD [2020] EWHC 679 (QB)

When the claimant demanded repayment of a loan it had wrongly believed there were arrears of $300k when the arrears were only $179.99. The court allowed an appeal against a refusal to set aside a default judgment. It was arguable with a real prospect of success that the arrears had been de minimis [45], that the claimant had a duty to state the debt with reasonable accuracy [47], or that there was an estoppel preventing the claimant relying on the lower sum as a default [48]. Discusses arguments that the contract contained penalties or that the defendant could seek relief from forfeiture [50] [57]. The fact that the arrears were so small also meant there was “some other” reason to set aside the judgment. Considers the impact of delay in applying to set aside the judgment [106] and considerations common to set aside and summary judgment applications [120].

29/7/19

MARTIN v McLAREN CONSTRUCTION LTD [2019] EWHC 2059 (Ch)

If a guarantor’s liability is expressed to arise on demand, there is nothing due unless and until demand is made. A statutory demand cannot itself qualify as such a demand because the debt claimed in a statutory demand must be due and payable immediately when the statutory demand is made. The same applied to an earlier statutory demand which had been withdrawn.

18/10/18

BARCLAYS BANK PLC v PRICE [2018] EWHC 2719 (Comm)

Although a guarantee included a principal debtor clause, on its proper interpretation a demand was required for the Bank to bring a claim under it. A demand was not invalid merely because it had been over-stated by £500.

20/6/17

PROMPT MOTOR LTD v HSBC BANK PLC [2017] EWHC 1487 (Ch)

The court dismissed the claimant's application under CPR 3.1(7) to set aside earlier orders dating back to 2011 granting summary judgement and refusing permission to appeal. The court had no jurisdiction, under CPR 3.1(7), to set aside the orders in respect of what was a very stale claim. Even if there was jurisdiction, the court would not have exercised its discretion to set aside the orders because there had been nothing to affect the validity of the bank's letter of demand, nor was there anything to prevent individuals who had been involved in working for the bank on the affairs of the borrower at an earlier date, from being appointed as administrative receivers.

26/6/13

SEA-CARGO SKIPS AS v STATE BANK OF INDIA [2013] EWHC 177 (Comm)

A claim on a bank guarantee for money payable under a shipbuilding contract was dismissed on grounds that demand made on the guarantee was deficient. Although the demand did not have to repeat precisely the words of guarantee, it was deficient because it was ambiguous and failed to identify the provision of the shipbuilding contract under which there had been a default.

26/3/13

PRIMA EQUITY LTD v WEST BROMWICH COMMERCIAL LTD [2013] EWHC 1450 (Ch)

A lender was not entitled to serve a formal demand where it had wrongly debited capital repayments to the borrower's account and no sums would have been due had those debits not been made. A failure to pay instalments in respect of an arrangement fee could have been a default, but the agreement did not allow for default interest on those unpaid instalments.

18/3/13

IN THE MATTER OF CARE PEOPLE LTD (IN ADMINISTRATION) [2013] EWHC 1734 (Ch)

Appointment of administrators by a qualifying floating chargeholder had been defective because demand was only 6 minutes before the appointment was made, giving the company no time to respond. But there had been no prejudice to the company since it had not been in a position to pay and creditors might have been prejudiced if the administration did not continue. The appointment was therefore declared valid and the defect waived.