national westminster bank plc v daniel and o

8/12/2019 National Westminster Bank Plc v Daniel and o

1/8

Page 1


2/8

Page 2

All England Law Reports/1994/Volume 1 /National Westminster Bank pl ! "aniel and ot#ers $%1994& 1 All ER 1'(

%1994& 1 All ER 1'(

National Westminster Bank plc v Daniel and others

COURT OF APPEAL C!"!L D!"!#!ON

$L!DEWELL AND BUTLER%#LO## L&&

'( FEBRUAR) '((*

Practice - Summary judgment - Leave to defend - Unconditional leave to defend - Test of whetherleave should be granted - Defendant seeking unconditional leave to defend - Defendant'saffidavits giving conflicting evidence - hether fair or reasonable !robability of defendant havinga real or bona fide defence - hether defendant having credible defence - "S# $rd %&

)n an appliation *+ t#e plainti,, ,or summar+ -udgment under R. )rd 14 a de,endant seekingunonditional lea!e to de,end must satis,+ t#e ourt t#at t#ere is a ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o,#is #a!ing a redi*le de,ene and not merel+ t#at t#ere is a ,aint possi*ilit+ t#at #e #as a de,ene0, it is not redi*le t#en t#ere is no ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o, #im setting up a de,ene0 , t#ea,,ida!its in support o, t#e appliation ,or lea!e to de,end gi!e on,liting e!idene t#e ourt ma+onlude t#at *eause t#e+ annot *ot# *e orret and t#e inonsisten+ is su# as to astdou*t on w#et#er eit#er is orret t#ere an *e no ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o, t#e de,endant

#a!ing a real or *ona ,ide de,ene 3see p 1'9 c d f gand p 1( a b d e h post50

"itum o, Akner L6 in (an)ue de Paris et des Pays-(as *Suisse+ S, v de aray%1974& 1 Llo+d8sRep 21 at 2 applied0

"itum o, We*ster 6 in Paclantic .inancing #o /nc v 0oscow arodny (ank Ltd%197& 1 WLR1( at 1(: disappro!ed0

1%22&3 % ,ll 4" %56 at %57

Notes

;or summar+ -udgment under R. )rd 14 generall+ see : 8alsbury's Laws34t# edn5 paras41$419 and ,or ases on t#e su*-et see :35 Digest3Reissue5 29$4: 9%:%-9;;60

Cases re+erred to in ,-d.ments

(an)ue de Paris et des Pays-(as *Suisse+S, v de aray%1974& 1 Llo+d8s Rep 21 A0

(hogal v Punjab ational (ank< (asna v Punjab ational (ank%1977& 2 All ER 29( A0


3/8

Page

Paclantic .inancing #o /nc v 0oscow arodny (ank Ltd%1974& 1 WLR 9 A< affg%197& 1WLR 1(0

Standard #hartered (ank v =aacoub%199& A =ransript (990

!nterloc-tor/ appeal and cross%appeal

=#e seond de,endant Paul Leonard .tep#en >ar!e+ appealed ,rom t#e order o, 6o#n"+son ? sitting as deput+ -udge o, t#e >ig# ourt in t#e ?ueen8s Ben# "i!ision on1 No!em*er 1992 w#ere*+ #e ga!e @r >ar!e+ lea!e to de,end t#e appliation made*+ t#e plainti,, National Westminster Bank pl ,or summar+ -udgment on a writ o,summons dated 6une 1992 laiming t#e sum o, 11:'7 ,rom @r >ar!e+ and ot#ersunder a guarantee o, t#e lia*ilities o, a ompan+ 6omini >ig#lig#t pl *ut made t#elea!e onditional on @r >ar!e+ pa+ing into ourt t#e sum o, 2' wit#in 42 da+s0

=#e *ank ross$appealed seeking an order t#at -udgment *e gi!en ,or 11:'7 t#e,ull sum in dispute plus interest or alternati!el+ t#at @r >ar!e+ #a!e lea!e to de,endonditionall+ on #im pa+ing into ourt t#e ,ull sum in dispute plus interest0 =#e ,ats areset out in t#e -udgment o, lidewell L60

Ste!hen >ones *instructed by #oo!er #arter #laremont< 8ailsham+ for 0r 8arvey

,li 0alek *instructed by /sadore ?oldman+ for the bank

$L!DEWELL L&0B+ a speiall+ indorsed writ issued on 6une 1992 t#e plainti,, NationalWestminster Bank pl laimed against t#ree de,endants o, w#om t#e present appellant @r Paul>ar!e+ was t#e seond upon a guarantee signed *+ ea# o, t#em guaranteeing t#e lia*ilit+ to

t#e plainti,, *ank o, 6omini >ig#lig#t pl0 =#e prinipal sum laimed was 11:'7C4'( w#i#toget#er wit# interest ame to 1474C4:0

Neit#er t#e ,irst nor t#e t#ird de,endant ga!e notie o, intention to de,end and -udgment in de,aultwas entered against t#em0

=#e plainti,, made appliation under R. )rd 14 ,or summar+ -udgment against @r >ar!e+0 )n 9)to*er 1992 t#e master #ad *e,ore #im two a,,ida!its sworn *+ @r .#a,,er 3t#e soliitor ating,or t#e plainti,,5 and an a,,ida!it sworn *+ @r >ar!e+ on 2 6ul+ 19920 =#e master ordered t#at @r>ar!e+ mig#t #a!e lea!e to de,end upon t#e pa+ment into ourt o, t#e w#ole o, t#e sum laimed3not inluding interest50

>e was reDuired to make t#at pa+ment into ourt wit#in 27 da+s< i, #e did not do so t#e plainti,,mig#t enter ,inal -udgment against #im ,or t#e apital sum wit# interest0

@r >ar!e+ appealed t#at deision0 )n 1 No!em*er 1992 @r 6o#n "+son ? sitting as a deput+-udge o, t#e >ig# ourt allowed t#e appeal to t#e etent o, reduing t#e sum reDuired to *e*roug#t into ourt as a ondition ,or lea!e to de,end to t#e sum o, 2'0

1%22&3 % ,ll 4" %56 at %5@


4/8

Page 4

@r >ar!e+ appeals ,urt#er to t#is ourt against t#at deision on t#e *asis t#at #e is una*le to pa+an+ sum at all0 >e seeks lea!e to addue additional e!idene *e,ore t#is ourt w#i# was not*e,ore t#e -udge and #e urges us to sa+ t#at t#e proper ourse was to grant #im unonditionallea!e to de,end0

=#e plainti,, *ank ounter$appeals arguing t#at on t#e material *e,ore t#e -udge lea!e to de,ends#ould not *e gi!en0 =#eir e!idene inluded a seond a,,ida!it sworn *+ @r >ar!e+ on ' )to*er1992 toget#er wit# a t#ird a,,ida!it sworn on 21 )to*er 1992 and a s#ort a,,ida!it sworn *+ @r>olste t#e manager 3at t#e rele!ant time5 o, t#e *ran# o, t#e plainti,, *ank wit# w#i# @r >ar!e+dealt on,irming @r .#a,,er8s a,,ida!it0

@r @alek ,or t#e plainti,, *ank su*mits t#at t#e proper ourse is to enter -udgment ,or t#e plainti,,*ank in t#e sum laimed0

start *+ onsidering w#at is t#e proper test ,or t#e ourt to adopt in irumstanes w#ere 3as

#ere5 it #as *e,ore it on an appliation ,or summar+ -udgment under )rd 14 a,,ida!its w#i# gi!eompletel+ on,liting aounts o, a transation0

#ronologiall+ t#e matter *egins wit# a -udgment o, We*ster 6 in Paclantic .inancing #o /nc v0oscow arodny (ank Ltd%197& 1 WLR 1( in w#i# t#is !er+ situation arose0 =#e -udge said3at 1(:5F

8W#ere in matters o, t#is kind lea!e to de,end is gi!en t#e su*seDuent trial i, it takes plae ma+ takeman+ mont#s and t#e *ank ma+ *e kept out o, mone+ to w#i# it is entitled ,or man+ +ears0 )n t#e ot#er#and i, summar+ -udgment is gi!en a de,endant ma+ *e depri!ed o, a legitimate de,ene wit#out trialwit#out e!en #a!ing *een #eard and wit#out #is e!idene #a!ing *een #eard and tested0 t does notseem to me t#at ross$eamination o, t#e de,endant on #is a,,ida!it is likel+ to assist0 , t#e ase isompliated t#e preparation ,or and #earing o, t#e ross$eamination ma+ in!ol!e almost as mu# timeand epense as t#e trial0 , t#e ase is straig#t,orward a speed+ trial ould *e ordered0 But in t#e

a*sene o, an opportunit+ to test t#e de,endant8s !erait+ it seems to me t#at t#e ourt s#ould ne!ergi!e summar+ -udgment ,or t#e plainti,, w#ere upon t#e e!idene *e,ore it e!en a ,aint possi*ilit+ o, ade,ene eists08

=#en in relation to t#at partiular ase #e said 3at 1(:5F

8 onlude t#ere,ore t#at an re-et @r0 Wong8s a,,ida!it or an+ e!idene ontained in it onl+ i, t#ea,,ida!it or t#at e!idene is in#erentl+ unrelia*le *eause it is sel,$ontraditor+ or i, it is inadmissi*le ori, it is irrele!ant0 onlude t#at ould re-et a de,endant8s e!idene w#en t#ere is a,,irmati!e e!idenew#i# is eit#er admitted *+ t#e de,endant or un#allengea*le *+ #im and w#i# is uneDui!oall+inonsistent wit# #is own e!idene< and w#ere no or no plausi*le eplanation is gi!en o, t#einonsisten+< *eause in su# a ase ould *ut would not neessaril+ onlude t#at on t#e e!idenenot e!en a ,aint possi*ilit+ o, a de,ene eisted0 But onlude t#at s#ould not re-et t#e de,endant8se!idene i, merel+ *eause o, its in#erent implausi*ilit+ or i ts inonsisten+ wit# ot#er e!idene ,ind it

inredi*le or almost inredi*le80

=#at ase ame on appeal to t#is ourt w#i# up#eld t#e deision o, We*ster 6 *ut gi!ing t#e-udgment o, t#e ourt Ro*ert o,, L6 said 3%1974& 1 WLR 9 at 995F

1%22&3 % ,ll 4" %56 at %52

8=#ere #as not *een *e,ore t#is ourt eit#er ,ull itation o, aut#orit+ or ,ull argument upon t#is point%re,erring to We*ster 68s o*ser!ations w#i# #a!e -ust read&0 Aordingl+ we desist ,rom epressing an+onluded !iew upon it0 We wis# #owe!er to epress our reser!ations a*out a statement w#i# seeks to


5/8

Page '

ategorise in elusi!e terms t#e irumstanes in w#i# su# a,,ida!it e!idene an *e re-eted08

A,ter We*ster 68s deision *ut *e,ore t#e deision o, t#is ourt in Paclantic .inancing #o /nc v0oscow arodny (ank Ltd t#ere was anot#er deision o, t#is ourt (an)ue de Paris et desPays-(as *Suisse+ S, v de aray%1974& 1 Llo+d8s Rep 210 Akner L6 said 3at 25F

8t is o, ourse trite law t#at )0 14 proeedings are not deided *+ weig#ing t#e two a,,ida!its0 t is alsotrite t#at t#e mere assertion in an a,,ida!it o, a gi!en situation w#i# is to *e t#e *asis o, a de,ene doesnot ipso ,ato pro!ide lea!e to de,end< t#e ourt must look at t#e w#ole situation and ask itsel, w#et#ert#e de,endant #as satis,ied t#e ourt t#at t#ere is a ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o, t#e de,endants8#a!ing a real or *ona ,ide de,ene08

)8onnor L6 agreed0

n (hogal v Punjab ational (ank< (asna v Punjab ational (ank%1977& 2 All ER 29( at

Bing#am L6 putting t#e matter di,,erentl+ saidF

8But t#e orretness o, ,atual assertions su# as t#ese annot *e deided on an appliation ,orsummar+ -udgment unless t#e assertions are s#own to *e mani,estl+ ,alse eit#er *eause o, t#eirin#erent implausi*ilit+ or *eause o, t#eir inonsisten+ wit# t#e ontemporar+ douments or ot#erompelling e!idene08

;inall+ in Standard #hartered (ank v =aacoub%199& A =ransript (99 Llo+d L6 gi!ing t#edeision o, t#e ourt wit# w#i# Ni#olls L6 agreed saidF

8t is sometimes said t#at in an appliation under )rd 14 t#e ourt is *ound to aept t#e assertion o, ade,endant on a,,ida!it unless it is sel,$ontraditor+ or inonsistent wit# ot#er parts o, t#e de,endant8sown e!idene and t#at t#e ourt annot re-et an assertion on t#e simple ground t#at it is in#erentl+inredi*le08

Llo+d L6 t#en re,erred to We*ster 68s deision in Paclantic .inancing #o /nc v 0oscow orodny(ank Ltd sa+ing t#at it was not appro!ed *+ t#e ourt o, Appeal0 >e t#en re,erred to t#e

-udgment o, Bing#am L6 in (hogal v Punjab ational (ankand ontinuedF

8n t#e present ase ask m+sel, w#et#er it is redi*le t#at an oral agreement was made in mid$6anuar+o, 197' as alleged *+ @r Naidoo in #is t#ird a,,ida!it0 #a!e ome to t#e onlusion t#at it is not08

t is rig#t to sa+ t#at in The Su!reme #ourt Practice %229!ol 1 para 14/$4/7 re,erene is madeto We*ster 68s deision in relation to t#is matter wit# t#e Duali,iation t#at it was not

w#ole#eartedl+ appro!ed in t#e ourt o, Appeal0 n t#e latest supplement re,erene is also madeto t#e -udgment o, Akner L6 in t#e (an)ue de Parisase wit# t#e Duali,iation t#at Paclantic3We*ster 68s deision5 was not ited in t#at ase and t#e editors su*mit t#at t#e (an)ue de Parisase s#ould *e ,ollowed0

1%22&3 % ,ll 4" %56 at %6:

n m+ -udgment t#at last o*ser!ation is orret0 regard t#e test ,ormulated *+ We*ster 6 wit#respet to #im as *eing too narrow and too restriti!e0 t#ink it rig#t to ,ollow t#e words o, AknerL6 in t#e (an)ue de Parisase or indeed t#ose w#i# amount to mu# t#e same t#ing 3as see


6/8

Page (

it5 o, Llo+d L6 in Standard #hartered (ank v =aacoubF is t#ere a ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o,t#e de,endants #a!ing a real or *ona ,ide de,eneG Llo+d L6 posed t#e testF is w#at t#e de,endantsa+s redi*leG , it is not t#en t#ere is no ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o, #im setting up ade,ene0

n t#is ase t#e learned deput+ -udge adopted Akner L68s test and t#ere,ore we annot sa+ t#at#e misdireted #imsel,0 t ,ollows in m+ -udgment t#at essentiall+ we an onl+ di,,er ,rom #im i,we an sa+ t#at #e was w#oll+ wrong in t#e deision to w#i# #e ame0

.o ,ar we #a!e onl+ #eard argument on t#e plainti,, *ank8s ross$appeal so t#ere,ore we are onl+dealing wit# t#e Duestion w#et#er t#e -udge was w#oll+ wrong in t#e onlusion to w#i# #e ameon t#e material *e,ore #im w#i# is now *e,ore t#is ourt0

%>is Lords#ip t#en onsidered t#e e!idene and stated t#at t#e aounts gi!en in @r >ar!e+8s twoa,,ida!its relating to t#e alleged dis#arge o, personal guarantees gi!en *+ t#e two de,endants

were totall+ inonsistent and ould not *ot# *e orret w#i# ast dou*t upon w#et#er eit#er o,t#em were orret0 >is Lords#ip ontinuedF& n m+ -udgment upon t#at material t#e onl+ properonlusion to w#i# t#e -udge ould #a!e ome was t#at t#e aount gi!en *+ @r >ar!e+ o, anagreement rea#ed wit# t#e *ank manager o, 12 )to*er 199 to release t#e personalguarantees was inredi*le to use t#e words o, Llo+d L60 n ot#er words it ,alls ,airl+ and sDuarel+wit#in Akner L68s ditum0

Looking at t#e w#ole situation onlude t#at t#ere is no ,air or reasona*le pro*a*ilit+ o, t#ede,endant #a!ing a real or *ona ,ide de,ene0

@r 6ones #as not soug#t to argue as an alternati!e and logiall+ o, ourse #e ould not possi*l+#a!e done so t#at i, t#e ourt took t#e !iew t#at t#ere was no argua*le de,ene in relation to t#e

)to*er meeting t#ese ould onei!a*l+ *e a de,ene in relation to t#e alleged agreement in6une0

Aordingl+ wit# t#e greatest respet to #im take t#e !iew t#at t#e deput+ -udge was plainl+wrong in t#e deision to w#i# #e ame on t#is material< t#at alt#oug# in terms #e applied t#erig#t test #e understood it 3per#aps t#is is t#e eplanation5 too narrowl+ and aordingl+ #e ,ellinto error0

;or t#at reason would allow t#e appeal< would set aside t#e -udge8s order and would enter-udgment ,or t#e plainti,, *ank in t#e sum laimed0

BUTLER%#LO## L&0

;or t#e reasons gi!en in t#e -udgment o, lidewell L6 wit# w#i# respet,ull+ agree agree t#att#e ross$appeal s#ould *e allowed and t#at t#e appeal s#ould *e dismissed0

,!!eal dismissed #ross-a!!eal allowed


7/8

Page :

Raina Le!+ Barrister0


8/8

national westminster bank plc v daniel and o

Documents