Sze Ming Yeung v Jeckz Investment Ltd & Ors
[2024] EWCA Civ 1413
Hope Capital 2 Limited v Stephen Michael Jones
5 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 1308 (Ch)
High Court
A lender won a lawsuit against a guarantor. The guarantor appealed, saying a later agreement changed things. The court ordered more information. The lender provided it, showing the guarantor was still responsible. The appeal failed.
Key Facts
- •Hope Capital 2 Limited (Claimant) sought to recover £2,585,723.37 from Stephen Michael Jones (Defendant) under a Deed of Guarantee and Indemnity.
- •The guarantee was in relation to a loan to Sphere Property 2 Limited, where the Defendant was a director.
- •The Defendant argued a new agreement existed, varying or discharging his obligations under the guarantee.
- •Master Clark granted summary judgment for the Claimant.
- •The Defendant appealed, initially on multiple grounds, but permission was granted only concerning the existence and effect of the 'New Agreement'.
Legal Principles
Summary judgment principles as set out in *Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Limited* [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch) and subsequent cases.
Easyair Ltd v Opal Telecom Limited [2009] EWHC 339 (Ch)
The court must consider evidence available and reasonably expected at trial.
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond (No 5) [2001] EWCA Civ 550
The court should hesitate before making a final decision without trial if a fuller investigation might alter the outcome.
Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd v Bolton Pharmaceutical Co 100 Ltd [2007] FSR 63
In summary judgment, the court can evaluate evidence and conclude no real prospect of success.
King v Stiefel [2021] EWHC 1045 (Comm)
The test for 'no real prospect of succeeding' requires a judgment on the whole case, not just individual points.
Three Rivers D.C. v Governor and Company of the Bank of England (No. 3) [2003] 2 AC 1
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The court ordered disclosure of documents relating to the 'New Agreement'. The Claimant provided further evidence showing the agreement did not affect the Defendant's liability. The Defendant failed to substantively engage with the new evidence.
Costs awarded to the Claimant.
The Defendant's appeal was unsuccessful and his actions contributed to unnecessary costs.
Similar Cases
India Infrastructure Finance Company (UK) Limited v Reliance Naval & Engineering Limited & Ors
[2023] EWHC 1612 (KB)
Charles Roberts v Kseye Capital No.1 Limited & Anor
[2023] EWHC 2927 (Ch)
Wayne Murfet & Anor v Property Lending LLP & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2787 (Ch)
Close Brothers Limited v Rooster Trucking Company Limited & Ors.
[2023] EWCA Civ 533