Harvey v Dunbar: satisfaction guaranteed?

By Ruth Evans

Harvey v Dunbar Assets highlights the potential adverse consequences for lenders when guarantees are not fully or correctly executed. When a single composite guarantee is not correctly entered into by all parties, the guarantee may itself be unenforceable.

Harvey and three others entered into a guarantee to enable a company to secure a £3m loan facility. The guarantee imposed joint and several liability on the co-sureties, meaning that if one guarantor were to be sued for the full amount, they would have a claim against their fellow guarantors for a contribution.

One guarantor claimed that his signature was a forgery and he had never actually signed the guarantee. When the bank subsequently tried to enforce the guarantee against another guarantor, Harvey, he claimed that on the assumption that one signature was a forgery none of the sureties were bound…

Click on the link below to read the rest of the Shoosmiths briefing.

Briefings from Shoosmiths

View more briefings from Shoosmiths

Analysis from The Lawyer

  • Hester: declined bonus worth almost £1m

    Pay checks

    Compliance and corporate governance codes for large financial institutions will undoubtedly include provisions to regulate high pay in the future

  • high street 150

    Focus: Alternative business structures - Law and new order

    There’s more to the ABS model than attracting the man in the street and procuring external investment. Partners at the big corporate firms, take note…

Overview

2 Colmore Square
38 Colmore Circus Queensway
Birmingham
B4 6BJ
UK
http://www.shoosmiths.co.uk

Turnover (£m): 87.00
No. of Lawyers: 373