fbpx

Compromising On Disputes is Usually Best – But Be Careful What You Sign!

Compromising On Disputes is Usually Best - But Be Careful What You Sign!

Any lawyer would agree that, wherever possible, it is better to compromise litigation rather than fight on to what may be a bitter end. However, as a High Court case showed, compromise agreements require very careful professional drafting so that all sides fully understand exactly what they are signing up to.

The case concerned a couple who personally guaranteed repayment of £2.6 million in loans made to a property development company. The lender later took action to enforce those guarantees. Resisting the claim, the couple asserted that they had been released from the guarantees, which were in any event unenforceable. A compromise agreement was, however, reached on the first day of the trial of the action.

The agreement stated that both sides would use reasonable endeavours to reach a full and final settlement of the dispute. In the event that such a settlement was not reached by a deadline date, however, it was agreed that the lender would be at liberty to enter judgment against the couple for a total sum of £3.3 million.

The deadline date having passed without a final deal being struck, the lender sought judgment against the couple in that amount. They responded with claims that the lender had failed in its obligation to use reasonable endeavours in order to seek a final resolution. That, they argued, was a fundamental breach that went to the root of the compromise agreement, rendering it unenforceable.

The Court found that, on a true reading of the agreement, the lender was not obliged to use reasonable endeavours as a precondition before it could apply for judgment against the couple once the deadline had passed. Such an obligation could also not be implied into the agreement for reasons of business efficacy or otherwise.

Although the requirement to use reasonable endeavours served as a statement of common intention and to encourage the parties to seek a consensual resolution, it was in practice very difficult to enforce. The Court found that, by entering into meaningful negotiations, the lender had in any event met that requirement. It had not been obliged to accept the repayment proposals put forward by the couple.

The couple having no reasonable prospect of defending the lender’s claim, judgment was entered against them for £3.3 million. The lender was also awarded judgment in the same amount against a company of which the couple were directors and which had also guaranteed repayment of the loans.

Our articles are provided for general interest and information only. They do not constitute legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure that the content accurately reflects the law in England as at the date of its transmission, no liability is accepted for any loss or damage arising from any act or omission resulting from any information contained herein.

Covid19 Information

WE ARE STILL OPEN FOR BUSINESS HOWEVER, OUR FRONT DOORS WILL BE CLOSED TO THE PUBLIC UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. For us all to be as safe as possible, our preference will be to interact with clients by telephone, email and/or zoom meetings ONLY. We would ask that if you have to drop any papers off at our offices, you use our Post Box unless you need anything copying, in those cases please knock the door and one of our receptionists will deal with you at the front door but only if you are wearing protective face coverings. If you require further assistance then a member from the relevant department will telephone you thereafter to discuss. We hope you understand that this is to safeguard you, our staff and to limit as much contact as possible. We may take a little longer to respond to enquiries and deal with matters. Please bear with us. FOR MORE INFORMATION CLICK THE BUTTON BELOW.