Blog

  • Personal Guarantees

    Personal Guarantees

    Eldwick Law sets out guidance on what personal guarantees are and the grounds upon which you can challenge them.

    Personal guarantees and the law

    A personal guarantee is an agreement whereby an individual (the guarantor) agrees to satisfy the contractual obligations of another party, in the event that contracting party fails to do so. Generally the guarantee is given in favour of a creditor (such as a bank) and the contractual obligation is the repayment of a sum of money by a particular date.  For example, if an individual signs a personal guarantee on behalf of a business when taking out a loan, the individual is agreeing to become personally responsible for the financial obligations of the business to the bank, in the event the business fails to make its loan repayments.

    How far does a guarantor’s liability extend?

    The extent to which a guarantor is liable will either be limited to a certain amount or the entirety of an amount borrowed. However, even in circumstances where a guarantee is limited to a certain amount, a guarantor may be liable for enforcements costs and the interest on the outstanding debt, which is likely to accrue, over and above the principal amount.

    If the creditor calls upon the personal guarantee and the guarantor defaults, the creditor would be in a position to institute court proceedings for breach of contract or institute bankruptcy proceedings, thereby putting the guarantor’s personal assets at risk.

    Setting aside a personal guarantee

    There are several circumstances that can lead to a personal guarantee being set aside, which include:

    1. Duress

    Where a party’s consent to a contract is induced by duress, the contract is voidable by the aggrieved party. The threat can be actual or threatened violence or unlawful restraint to the person or to property; or it can be economic duress, such as a threat to terminate a contract. In order to prove economic duress, a party must demonstrate that the economic pressure being applied was illegitimate and that the party would not have entered into the contract but for the illegitimate economic pressure.

    1. Misrepresentation

    A party who has been a victim of misrepresentation (including an innocent misrepresentation) may rescind a contract, if that party was induced to enter into it by the statement made.  This remedy is usually only actionable where the other party to the contract has made the misrepresentation relied on.

    1. Undue Influence

    Undue influence applies when one party is able to exert influence over another, to the extent of preventing them from exercising independent judgment, and uses this influence to force them entering into a contract. The undue influence can be an actual (express) influence; and it can be an influence, which is presumed from the special relationship between the parties.

    1. Breach of Duty to Disclose

    Generally, the beneficiary of  personal guarantees is not under a duty to disclose material facts to the guarantor and the guarantor is under an obligation to inquire into and determine all the relevant facts. However, it has been established that a beneficiary under a guarantee may sometimes be under a duty to disclose unusual facts, not known, to a prospective guarantor and that if it fails to do so, the guarantee will be void.

    What do our solicitors say about personal guarantee laws and liabilities?

    Eager to secure funding, many individuals and especially new business owners, sign personal guarantees without fully understanding its implications and the real risk it may pose to their personal assets. It is imperative that, prior to signing a personal guarantee, you seek legal advice from an independent solicitor in order to ensure that you fully understand the legal ramifications.

    If a creditor is threatening to or has instituted legal proceedings against you based on personal guarantee, you should immediately seek legal advice. Proceedings such as those instituting bankruptcy proceedings are subject to strict time periods.

    Eldwick law has a team of experienced solicitors, who can assist at any stage, be it the provision of initial advice or assistance in bringing/defending legal proceedings.

  • Penalty Clauses, Primary & Secondary Obligation

    Penalty Clauses, Primary & Secondary Obligation

    Is it a penalty? It depends on its goal….

    Understanding penalty clauses in contracts is crucial for anyone involved in legal agreements or business dealings.

    In this article, we’ll delve into what a penalty clause is and why it’s significant in contract law, with a particular focus on the landmark 2016 case, Cavendish Square Holding BV v. Talal El Makdessi.

    This case reshaped the legal approach to penalty clauses, establishing new guidelines for when they can be enforced.

    We’ll discover the key aspects of this ruling and its implications for contracts. To bring this to life, we’ll also examine a real-world example from Eldwick Law, showcasing how these legal principles are applied in practice.

    This guide serves as a valuable resource for anyone looking to gain a clearer understanding of penalty clauses and their role in contracts.

    Contact Us

    What is a Penalty Clause?

    Broadly, a penalty clause is a contractual provision that levies an excessive monetary sum unrelated to the actual harm against a default party. They are generally unenforceable under English Law.

    What is the test for deciding whether a provision is a penalty clause?

    The landmark case of Cavendish Square Holding BV -v- Talal El Makdessi [2016] AC 1172 replaced the old test of whether a penalty clause was a “genuine pre-estimate of loss“. In Makdessi, Mr El-Makdessi agreed to sell his stake in a marketing company to the Claimant.

    The parties entered into a contract, which included certain restrictive covenants (requiring a party to either do or refrain from taking a specific action) that he would not engage in competing activities. If he did, then he would not be owed the final two instalments of the sale price and further, the Claimant could purchase his remaining shares within the business.

    Mr El-Makdessi breached the non-compete clause in the contract, but argued that the clauses were unenforceable as penalty clauses. However, the Supreme Court held that both clauses were primary obligations and therefore not subject to the penalty rule.

    What does it mean?

    Lords Neuberger and Sumption (with whom Lords Clarke and Carnwath agreed) gave the leading judgment restating the penalty rule. A contractual provision is penal if, as a matter of construction:

    1. It is a secondary obligation; and
    1. It seeks to impose a detriment on the defaulting party, which is out of proportion to any legitimate interest of the innocent party in the performance of the primary obligation.

    Primary Obligation vs Secondary Obligation

    A primary obligation is essentially an obligation that has been imposed on both parties to carry out whatever they have promised to do, whereas a secondary obligation, would set out what the penalty is in the event of a breach of contract.

    As to what may constitute a “legitimate interest”, Lords Neuberger and Sumption said the following:

    “The innocent party can have no proper interest in simply punishing the defaulter. His interest is in performance or in some appropriate alternative to performance. In the case of a straightforward damages clause, that interest will rarely extend beyond compensation for the breach, and we therefore expect that Lord Dunedin’s four tests would usually be perfectly adequate to determine its validity. But compensation is not necessarily the only legitimate interest that the innocent party may have in the performance of the defaulter’s primary obligations.”

    In his judgment, Lord Hodge also noted that where the primary obligation which has been breached is to pay money on a specific date, the innocent party’s interests are normally fully served by the payment of the specified sum together with interest and the costs of recovery.

    Penalty Clause Case Study

    We recently acted for a client who had been ordered to pay the entire sum due under a settlement agreement.

    His liability under the settlement agreement represented approximately 5% of the total settlement sum, but he was jointly and severally liable. Accordingly, when he failed to make payment, the creditor successfully obtained a judgment ordering our client to pay the entire sum due under the settlement agreement, less any payment he had already made.

    In practical terms, this meant that he became liable for a sum almost 10 times that he was originally liable to pay. We appealed, arguing that this was a penalty clause as it imposed a secondary obligation upon our client.
    We obtained permission, but shortly before the hearing, we settled on favourable terms.

    These examples highlight why it is important you understand each provision when entering into contracts, what could be classed as a primary or secondary obligation, and the remedies available to either the innocent party or defaulting party in the event of a breach, especially if there is unequal bargaining power between the parties.

    Our commercial litigation team at Eldwick Law have the expertise in drafting and advising on contracts and can assist you in the event of a dispute.

    Contact Us

  • Guidance from the CMA on Cartel Investigations

    Guidance from the CMA on Cartel Investigations

    The Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) recently published a blog with their guidance on cartel investigations entitled, How the CMA investigates cartels. This explains what the CMA frequently does as part of its evidence-gathering process, including, for example, undertaking covert surveillance, or executing dawn raids. This is a good read for solicitors and other practitioners undertaking work in this area, as well as businesses at risk of such regulatory interventions and criminal investigations.

    The CMA has set out details of how cartel investigations commence, for example, from organic intelligence-gathering and tip-offs to self-reporting. They outline their powers, including with regard to dawn raids, interviews, and compelling organisations to produce information. The CMA then go on to outline the process of setting out a “Statement of Objections” – that is, the CMA’s initial findings from their cartel investigation. Subjects have an opportunity to reply to this. The matter may then proceed to a final, published CMA decision.

    Where criminal sanctions are being entertained, the CMA will also carry out an assessment on whether there are sufficient grounds for individuals or businesses to be charged and prosecuted in the criminal courts.

    The CMA also outline the exercising of their discretion in applying to the Court for the directors of companies guilty of cartel behaviour to be disqualified from acting as company directors (for up to 15 years).

    All in all, worth a read!

    Abbas Nawrozzadeh is the Head of Regulatory and White Collar Crime at Eldwick Law. If you and/or your business are being investigated by the CMA or require expert advice, then please do not hesitate to email an@eldwicklaw.com and/or telephone 0207 887 6525.

  • Case Study: Energie Direct Franchising Limited v Star Gym Limited

    Case Study: Energie Direct Franchising Limited v Star Gym Limited

    Case Background

    The background to the claim is that the Defendant, Mr Nabi (a franchisee of Energie) was unhappy with the service being provided by energie Fit4Less, in particular their in-house software system called “Elan”. Mr Nabi was a vocal critic within the Energie franchisee network and felt that he was being bullied and intimated by Energie’s chief executive Mr Jan Spaticchia for voicing his concerns.

    There was then a significant deterioration in the relationship between Mr Spaticchia and Mr Nabi. Energie eventually terminated their Franchise Agreement with Mr Nabi on 28 April 2017. Under clause 25.3 of that Franchise Agreement, Energie exercised its option to take over the lease of the club, to purchase its assets including fitness equipment and to have assigned or novated to it any other contracts.

    Energie appointed three surveyors to provide opinions on the open market value of the lease. All three surveyors opined that the lease had little value and produced an “average-of-averages figure of £8,344” which was offered to Mr Nabi as the value of the lease. Mr Nabi rejected the valuations on the basis that Energie’s valuers were biased and the valuations were therefore not independent. This then led to a period where Mr Nabi continued to operate the club, even though the Franchise Agreement had been terminated (the “Interim Arrangement”). During the Interim Arrangement, Energie unilaterally ceased making payments received by Star Gym’s members, “purportedly so that it could if and when necessary pay for the Club’s staff, members and landlord.” After several months of negotiations, whilst Energie continued to withhold Mr Nabi’s payments, the club was closed down and Mr Nabi “flipped the signs” and handed the club to a company called HRPMoon Limited, of which Mr Nabi’s wife was the sole director.

    Energie Fit4Less brought a claim for breach of the Franchise Agreement, breach of confidence, procuring breaches of contract and unlawful means conspiracy. They also sought an injunction for specific performance, springboard injunctions against HRPMoon Limited, delivery up of confidential data, database, contact details and unquantified damages.

    Mr Murray Rosen QC (sitting as a Judge in the High Court) heard evidence from Mr Nabi, Mr Spattichia, Mr Simon Horner of GCW Retail Property Consultants (Energie’s appointed surveyor), Mr David Waugh of Elan (and Energie’s Systems and Technology Director) and other Energie representatives.

    The Judge’s Comments

    “I am bound to record that neither Mr Spaticchia nor Mr Horner impressed me as reliable witnesses, especially in attempting to minimise the relationship between Energie and GCW and explain Mr Horner’s role.”

    “Mr Spaticchia also seemed to me readily prepared to assume and hypothesise, if not invent, to make up for gaps in his recollection. I do not accept that he had a sufficient grasp of the details of his dealings with the Defendants to gainsay the documentary evidence and obvious inferences therefrom.

    As for Mr Nabi, whilst many aspects of his evidence seemed consistent with the documents or otherwise plausible – especially as regards the attempts to dominate the Defendants as franchisees by Energie – his account of how HRPMoon came to operate the Club – under his wife’s independent initiative, and with “accidental” access to the Member Information on his laptop – was incredible. This necessarily cast doubt over other controversial aspects of his testimony.”

    After a trial of 7 days, Mr Rosen QC dismissed Energie’s claims for specific performance and for damages (save as to nominal damages).

  • Is the UK Going to Finally Legalise Cannabis?

    Is the UK Going to Finally Legalise Cannabis?

    Eldwick Law’s commercial solicitors comment on the legalisation of cannabis.

    Cannabis in the form of Cannabidiol, also known as CBD has become legalised since 1 November 2018 in the UK. The turning point that outraged the public and commanded change (more…)