Legislator Giurisprudenza & Legislazione
DE FR IT EN
Analizza in Legislator
IEHC 308 ECLI:IE:HC:2009:308 Generato dall'IA

Guarantee claim allowed where ambiguous text interpreted to cover all covenants and all plaintiffs.

Numero d'incarto IEHC 308
Autorità giudiziaria
Giurisdizione Irlanda (IE)
Data della decisione
Esito del giudizio Accolto (Allowed)
Versione Markdown leggibile dalle macchine (.md)

Sintesi Legislator

Generato dall'IA

The court allowed the plaintiffs' claim for €94,814.41 against the defendant based on a formally proved guarantee instrument. While the defendant argued the text was ambiguous and limited to a third plaintiff, the judge rejected these submissions. The court held that the phrase 'whether any demand shall have been made or not' confirmed the guarantee's effectiveness and scope.

Regesto Legislator

Generato dall'IA

s. 1 of the Interpretation Act 1935; s. 1 of the Interpretation Act 1935: Ambiguity in a guarantee document must be resolved in favour of the guarantor only if the language is genuinely uncertain, not merely because the guarantor disputes the breadth of the covenants covered.

Parole chiave

Generato dall'IA
guarantee instrument ambiguity in contract formal proof covenant enforcement joint liability interpretation of text debt recovery

Ti chiedi come si applica questa sentenza alla tua fattispecie?

Analizza questa decisione insieme alla legislazione federale e cantonale, ai commentari e alla giurisprudenza successiva in Legislator AI.

Apri in Legislator →

Testo completo

Neutral Citation Number: [2009] IEHC 308

THE HIGH COURT

2006 2911 P

BETWEEN

CROHAN O’SHEA, SEAN FITZPATRICK AND O’SHEA HOMES LIMITED

PLAINTIFFS

AND

MATT LYNCH

DEFENDANT

Judgment of Mr. Justice de Valera delivered on the 19th day of March, 2009.

I have given judgment in the associated matter of Crohan O’Shea, Sean Fitzpatrick and O’Shea Homes Limited v. Lynch

Freight (Kilmallock) Limited (Record No. 2004 – 934S).

As already indicated in my judgment in that matter I am satisfied that the necessary formal proofs are in order and that

the defendant is in debt to the plaintiffs in the sum of €98,814.41.

In this, associated matter, the plaintiffs contend that the defendant, by an instrument of guarantee dated the 3rd April,

1998, guaranteed that Lynch Freight (Kilmallock) Limited would, inter alia, observe the covenants contained in the lease

between the plaintiffs and the defendant. The original guarantee document was produced in Court on the 17th January,

2008 and formally proved. It has been submitted to me that the text of the guarantee is ambiguous: this I do not accept.

Nor do I accept that the guarantee is limited to the third named plaintiff as submitted by the defendant. The wording of

the document “… whether any demand [for arrears] shall have been made or not” makes it clear that the question of a

failure of a demand raised by the defendant in his written submissions must also fail. I am satisfied that the guarantee is

effective and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sum of €94,814.41 against the defendant on foot thereof.