Court Upholds Bankruptcy Petition Based on Enforceable Guarantee in Roberts v Kseye Capital Case

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2927 (Ch)
Judgment on


In the case of Charles Roberts v Kseye Capital No.1 Limited & Anor, the court had to examine several legal principles in relation to a bankruptcy petition. The case encompassed issues regarding the enforceability of a guarantee, the interpretation and application of contractual clauses, and the standards by which a court should assess whether to dismiss a bankruptcy petition. This article delves into the key facts, the legal principles applied, the outcomes reached, and concludes with reflections on the broader implications of the case.

Key Facts

The appellant, Charles Roberts, was subject to a bankruptcy order based on his guarantee of a loan facility extended to GBQ Investments Limited by Kseye. The loan was not repaid, and Kseye sought to enforce the guarantee against Roberts. The central issue was whether a valid demand for payment under the guarantee had been made, which was a precondition to enforcing the guarantee (the ‘Demand Case’). Additional issues pertained to Roberts’ liability as a principal debtor under the guarantee (the ‘Principal Obligor Case’) and whether, even if the Guarantee was enforceable, the bankruptcy order could be upheld (the ‘Discretion Case’).

Demand Case

The Demand Case hinges on the ‘genuine dispute on substantial grounds’ test analogous to that applied in summary judgments under CPR Part 24. The Court looked at whether the alleged lack of proper service of a demand for payment under the guarantee raised a triable issue. As outlined in Markham v Karsten, the debtor must demonstrate realistic prospects of success on the issue.

Principal Obligor Case

The Principal Obligor Case involved the interpretation of a guarantee clause that simulates the guarantor’s liability to that of a ‘principal debtor’ under certain conditions. The Court considered established principles — such as those in MS Fashions Ltd v BCCI and Levin v Tannenbaum — regarding when a debt payable ‘on demand’ becomes due without an actual demand. However, the essence of this point centered on contractual interpretation principles as settled in Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank and later cases.

Discretion Case

Although not required to be determined, the Discretion Case involved considerations mentioned in Owo-Samson v Barclays Bank plc about the court’s discretionary power to maintain a bankruptcy order if it is shown that the debtor is unable to meet liabilities despite potential flaws in the bankruptcy petition process. The focus would likely be on whether there is no realistic prospect of the debtor satisfying the relevant debts.


The appeal was dismissed on all grounds. The Court found that the Demand Case did not present a genuine dispute on substantial grounds. The judge originally applied a ‘balance of probabilities’ test when determining this issue, which was contested, but the appellate court concluded that the judge was aware of and applied the correct test in substance.

In the hypothetical scenario that the Demand Case was successful on appeal, it was indicated that the Principal Obligor Case provided a sufficient basis for the bankruptcy order to stand, regardless of whether a demand had been made, based on contractual interpretation principles and the expansive meaning of the ‘any other reason’ clause in the guarantee. However, the Court determined that had it been necessary to resolve this issue, it would have been decided in Kseye’s favor, meaning the Primary Obligor Case would not have given rise to a genuine dispute.


The case reiterates that the detailed analysis of contractual terms is crucial in determining the rights and obligations of parties, especially in financial agreements involving guarantees and indemnities. The statutory test of ‘genuine dispute on substantial grounds’ remains a key threshold for courts when considering the dismissal of bankruptcy petitions, underscoring that such decisions require a careful balance between evaluation of evidentiary matters and respecting the procedures established by the Insolvency Rules and the CPR. This case goes a step further by highlighting the implications of contractual interpretation within insolvency proceedings, which is of significant importance for legal practitioners advising on or structuring such agreements.

Related Summaries