IIG Capital LLC v Van Der Merwe & Anor

This is an appeal from the judgment of Lewison J dated 13^th November 2007 by which he dismissed an appeal from a judgment of Master Teverson dated 19^th September 2007. Master Teverson had given summary judgment in the sum of $31,882,541.96 against the appellants (the Van Der Merwes) in favour of the respondents (IIG).

IIG had entered into a loan agreement with Hurst Parnell Imports and Exports Ltd (HPIE). The Van Der Merwes were directors of HPIE and executed “deeds of guarantee” in favour of IIG. Before the Master the Van Der Merwes, in reliance on such authorities as Holme v Brunskill (1878) 3 QBD 495 and Marubeni Hong Kong and South China Limited v Mongolian Government [2005] 1 WLR 2497,sought to rely on defences available to HPIE, in particular they sought to rely on expert evidence of New York law (the law by which the loan agreement was governed) to the effect that by that law there would be implied a covenant of good faith and fair dealing which would require IIG to have given reasonable notice of its demand and that such notice had not been given thereby providing HPIE a complete answer to the claim.

IIG’s case was however that on the true construction of the “deeds of guarantee” they excluded the forms of defence available to a guarantor where his liability is secondary i.e. the defences available to the primary obligor and thus that the above authorities had no application. They submitted that on the true wording of the guarantees executed by the Van Der Merwes, the Van Der Merwes were obliged to pay as principal obligor moneys certified as due by duly authorised officers of IIG.

The Master concluded that IIG were right as did Lewison J. Chadwick LJ granted permission to appeal despite it being a second appeal because the “security instrument which [the judge] had construed contained common form provisions, such that his decision might give rise to “ramifications”.”

The judge describes the matter in this way:-

“2.

In 2004 Mrs Van Der Merwe came across IIG Capital LLC (“IIG”), a company registered in New York and carrying on business there. She understood that it was interested in financing business start ups by trade finance and invoice discounting. IIG began affording finance to HPIE. However, the relationship had its ups and downs and Mr and Mrs Van Der Merwe transferred HPIE’s business to Barclays. But in 2006 IIG recaptured HPIE’s financing and a series of documents were entered into. All the documents were executed on the same day: 30 June 2006. One of those documents is at the heart of this dispute.

3.

The first of the relevant documents is a loan agreement made between IIG and HPIE. The loan agreement contains a number of warranties given and obligations undertaken by HPIE. These include (for example) warranties about the accuracy of HPIE’s accounts and financial statements (clause 8); obligations to provide regular accounts (clause 10.1); obligations to maintain insurance (clause 10.1.9); obligations not to enter into transactions otherwise than in the normal course of business (clause 11.4) and not to make loans to affiliates (clause 11.6). Clause 27.1 of that agreement said that the agreement was to be governed by New York Law. The second of the relevant documents was a debenture granted over the assets of HPIE. The third was a document described as a guarantee and signed by Mrs Van Der Merwe. I will refer to it as the guarantee, without prejudice to the contention of either party. Mr Van Der Merwe signed an identical document, although it was not in evidence.

4.

On 12 January 2007 IIG demanded US$30,303,576 from HPIE said to be due under the loan agreement; and on the same day appointed administrators over HPIE. HPIE did not pay the amount demanded; and on 16 January 2007 IIG sent letters to Mr and Mrs Van Der Merwe reciting the failure of HPIE to pay and certifying that the amount due and payable by each of them under the guarantee was US$30,303,576. The letter demanded payment within 2 days. Mr and Mrs Van Der Merwe have not paid.”

I can again take the description and relevant terms from the judge’s judgment. He describes Mrs Van Der Merwe’s guarantee but it is common ground that Mr Van Der Merwe’s was in identical terms:-

“6.

The guarantee begins by describing itself as “THIS GUARANTEE” and Mrs Van Der Merwe is described as “the Guarantor”. Recital (A) records the grant of the facility to HPIE (described as “the Borrower”) of US$23,000,000. Recital (B) says that it was a condition precedent to the grant of the facility that the “Guarantor enters into this Guarantee of the obligations of the Borrower to the Lender under the [Loan] Agreement”. Recital (C) says that the guarantee is an “all monies” guarantee.

7.

The document contains a single definition in clause 1.2. The defined term is “Guaranteed Monies” and the definition is:

“(i)

all moneys and liabilities (whether actual or contingent) which are now or may at any time hereafter be due, owing, payable, or expressed to be due, owing or payable, to the Lender from or by the Borrower (ii) all interest…costs, commissions, fees and other charges and expenses which the Lender may charge against the Borrower; and (iii) all legal and other costs, charges and expenses which the Lender may incur in enforcing or obtaining, or attempting to enforce or obtain, payment of any such moneys…”

8.

Clause 2 contains the main payment obligation and reads:

“In consideration of the Lender agreeing to enter into the Agreement, the Guarantor as principal obligor and not merely as surety unconditionally and irrevocably:

2.1

guarantees to the Lender the due and punctual payment of the Guaranteed Moneys and agrees that, if at any time or from time to time any of the Guaranteed Moneys are not paid in full on their due date … it will immediately upon demand unconditionally pay to the Lender the Guaranteed Moneys which have not been so paid

2.2

As an original and independent obligation under this Deed, the Guarantor shall

2.2.1

indemnify the Lender and keep the Lender indemnified against any loss … incurred by the Lender as a result of a failure by the Borrower to make due and punctual payment of any of the Guaranteed Monies …”

9.

Clause 3 is headed “Preservation of Guarantee” and provides:

“3.1

The Lender shall be at liberty without thereby affecting its rights hereunder at any time at its absolute discretion and with or without the consent or knowledge of or notice to the Guarantor:

3.1.1

to give time to any Obligor for the payment of all or any sums due or payable under the Agreement or any other Finance Document;

3.1.2

to neglect or forbear to enforce payment of all or any sums due or payable under the Agreement or any other Finance Document and (without prejudice to the foregoing) to grant any indulgence or forbearance to and fail to assert or pursue or delay in asserting or pursuing any right or remedy against any Obligor thereunder;

3.1.3

to accept, vary, exchange, renew, abstain from perfecting, or release any other security now held or to be held by it for or on account of the Financial Indebtedness;

3.1.4

to amend, add to or vary the terms of the Finance Documents;

3.1.5

to compound with, accept compositions from and make any other arrangements with any other Obligor.

3.2

This Guarantee and the rights of the Lender hereunder shall not be affected by:

3.2.1

the appointment of a receiver, trustee or similar officer of any other Obligor, its undertaking or all or any of its or his asset.

3.2.2

Any alteration of the status of any other Obligor or any defective or irregular exercise of the powers of the Borrower to raise finance

3.2.3

The insolvency, bankruptcy, death, incapacity, winding up, liquidation or dissolution of any other Obligor;

3.2.3

Any failure by the Lender to take any other security for all or any part of the indebtedness agreed to be taken by the Lender pursuant to the Finance Documents or any total or partial invalidity, voidability or unenforceability of any such security;

3.2.4

The doing by the Lender of anything referred to in clause 3.1 above; or

3.2.5

Any other act or circumstance which (apart from this provision) would or might constitute a legal or equitable defence for or discharge of a surety or guarantor,

and this Guarantee may be called and/or enforced without steps or proceedings first being taken against any other Obligor.”

10.

Clause 4.2 provided that:

“A certificate in writing signed by a duly authorised officer or officers of the Lender stating the amount at any particular time due and payable by the Guarantor under this Guarantee shall, save for manifest error, be conclusive and binding on the Guarantor for the purposes hereof.”

11.

Clause 5 said that the guarantee was “a continuing guarantee” and would remain in force until all sums “due from the Borrower under the Finance Documents have been paid in full”. Clause 7.3 prevented the Guarantor from asserting any set-off against the Borrower. Finally, clause 14 said that the guarantee was to be governed by English law.”

It was common ground before us that it ultimately depends on the true construction of the agreement whether a particular label is the right one to apply to any instrument. It was further common ground that the instrument must be construed “by looking at it as a whole without preconceptions as to what it is.” [see Tuckey LJ in Gold Coast Limited v Caja de Ahorros del Mediterraneo [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 142].

We were referred as was the judge to certain other authorities of relevance to construing the provisions with which we are concerned. First we were referred to Marubeni (supra) as to the right approach to the question whether under these instruments the Van Der Merwes were assuming a secondary liability dependant on the primary liability of HPIE, or whether they were assuming a primary liability independent of the liability of HPIE. The judge cites extensively from that authority and I will not repeat those citations because there was as I understand it no issue ultimately between Mr Collings QC and Mr McGrath as to the guidance which that authority provides. It emphasises that the context in which any instrument comes into being is important. Thus performance bonds given by banks are almost invariably construed as imposing a liability on the bank to pay, whatever dispute there may be on liability under the underlying contract. “They have been accepted by the courts as the equivalent of irrevocable letters of credit” (see paragraph 23 of Carnwath LJ’s judgment). Furthermore as he says in that paragraph “It cannot be assumed that cases relating to such banking instruments provide any useful guide when construing guarantees given outside the banking context”. In considering the instrument in that case he said that it was not a banking instrument and that it was not described either on its face or in the supporting legal opinion in terms “appropriate to a demand bond or something having equivalent legal effect”. The absence of such language in a transaction outside the banking context created in Carnwath LJ’s view “a strong presumption against” interpretation as a demand bond. That was a judgment with which Sir Martin Nourse and I agreed.

Lewison J took the view that “the strong presumption” against the deeds of guarantee being demand bonds applied and was thus concerned to see whether there are sufficient indications in the wording to displace that presumption [see paragraph 46]. No criticism is made of that approach by Mr McGrath [see paragraph 12.2 of his skeleton] and Mr Collings unsurprisingly emphasised the approach as the correct one.

A second line of authority to which our attention was directed related to what are commonly termed “conclusive evidence clauses”. The authority relied on by the judge was Bache v Banque Vernes [1973] 2 Lloyds Rep 437. In that case the plaintiffs had demanded a bank guarantee before entering into buying and selling transactions on behalf of their customer a French Trading company. The French Trading company’s bank gave a guarantee which included a conclusive evidence clause in the following terms:-

“Notice of default shall from time to time, be given by [plaintiffs] to [defendants] and on receipt of any such notice [defendants] will forthwith pay . . . the amount stated therein as due, such notice of default being as between [plaintiffs and defendants] conclusive evidence that [defendants’] liability hereunder has accrued in respect of the amount claimed.”

The Court of Appeal held unanimously that the conclusive evidence clause was valid and if notice of default was given it was binding according to its terms.

There are various points to record in relation to Bache. Mr Collings submitted that since the authority was concerned with a performance bond being given by a bank, it was not an authority which assisted to any great degree in a case outside that context, relying on Marubeni. I, of course, understand that submission but it goes no further than requiring an anxious scrutiny of the language of the clause used in any particular case in order to ascertain whether the guarantee is secondary or primary.

In this context Mr Collings was critical of the judge supporting the view he took by relying on a quotation from O’Donovan and Phillips without also referring to a passage in the book which appears shortly before the one he quoted. The passage relied on at the end of paragraph 5-105 reads as follows:-

“The fact that conclusive evidence clauses are strictly construed also means that the guarantor may raise arguments as to whether the document served upon him can properly be described as a “certificate” or “statement” and as to whether the person who has signed the certificate comes within the class of persons authorised to do so.”

The passage relied on by the judge from paragraph 5-107 appears from his judgment at paragraph 35 in the following terms:-

“Commenting on this kind of clause O’Donovan and Phillips say in The Modern Contract of Guarantee English Edition (2003) (¶ 5-107):

“The extraordinary effect of … the more usual conclusive evidence clause, in the context of a guarantee, however, is that a guarantee which is not phrased in terms of a performance bond payable simply on demand without proof of default becomes analogous to such a guarantee as a result of the inclusion of this clause.”

In Bache some attention was paid by all judges to the question which might arise if it ultimately turned out that what had been demanded had been too large a sum once any dispute between the underlying contracting parties had been resolved. Lord Denning MR at 440 said this:-

“Such being the commercial practice, it is only right that brokers should be able to turn to the French bank and say: “On our giving you notice of default, you must pay.”

The French bank can in turn recover the sum from their own customer, the French trading company. No doubt they have taken security for the purpose.

This does not lead to any injustice because if the figure should be erroneous, it is always open to the French trading company to have it corrected by instituting proceedings against the brokers, in England or in France, to get it corrected as between them.”

Megaw LJ dealt with the same point and relied on the fact that the bank would have covered themselves by requiring an indemnity from its customer [see page 441 left column]. Scarman LJ put it this way at 441:-

“On the question of policy I do not wish to add anything to what has already been said by my Lord, the Master of the Rolls, and Lord Justice Megaw. Had I the slightest doubt about the effect of the clause, I think it would have been right to have accepted the submission of Mr Libbert that there was a triable issue; but there is nothing in the clause which precludes a subsequent adjustment as between the English broker and the French customer of the bank. The result of that adjustment, if it takes place, will ultimately enure to the benefit of the bank, always assuming that the bank has used its opportunities to regulate its relationship with its customer in a businesslike way.”

The judge in the instant case also thought of some relevance (as indeed did we) how, if the Van Der Merwes were forced to pay the demand as certified but it later transpired that HPIE did not owe the sum, they would recover any over- payment. Mr Collings submitted that since it had to be assumed at the summary judgment stage that the defences being put forward on behalf of HPIE were arguable, it was necessary to consider the position on the basis that at a trial HPIE might be shown to have a complete defence to the claim. How a company could borrow nearly $30 million and have a complete defence to repaying any part back, it is difficult to imagine, but on any view with personal liability being at stake if there is an answer to any part of the claim to $32 million, the point is a serious one.

Mr Collings (as he had before the judge) relied on Trafalgar House Limited v General Surety Co [1996] 1 AC 199. That case was concerned with a bond issued jointly by a subcontractor and General Surety, the bond obliging the “guarantors” to pay a sum of money, but it being a condition of the bond that if the subcontractor performed all the terms of the subcontract (described as the first part of the condition), or “if on default by the subcontractors the surety shall satisfy and discharge the damages sustained by the main contractors thereby up to the amount of the above written bond” (described as the second part of the condition) then the bond would be null and void. The speech of Lord Jauncey in the House of Lords was supported by all other members of the Committee. His conclusions, by reference to which the decision of the Court of Appeal was reversed, have some relevance to other matters in issue in this appeal as well as to the particular point now being addressed and for that reason I will quote the relevant passage in its context. First at page 204 he identified the issues in this way:-

“Two principal issues arise in this appeal namely, first whether the bond is a guarantee with the consequent result that the appellants are entitled to rely on defences which would be available to Chambers and second whether the affidavits lodged by the appellants raise an issue which ought to be tried (the “triable issue”). For reasons which will become apparent it is appropriate to divide the first issue into two parts namely (1) whether the bond without the second part of the condition which I have italicised would be a guarantee (the “guarantee issue”) and (2) if so, whether the addition of that second part alters the position (the “construction issue”).”

He then said this at 207D to 208F:-

“My Lords I have no doubt that the Court of Appeal were in error in concluding that the bond was not a guarantee but was akin to an on demand bond. No distinction can, in my view, properly be drawn between the effect of this bond minus the second part of the condition and the bond considered by Lord Atkin in the Workington case [1937] AC 1, 17 and other bonds using this or similar wording which have for many years been generally treated as guarantees: Hudson’s building and Engineering Contracts, 11^th ed. (1995), vol 2 pp 1499-1500, para 17-007. Thus in a second action arising out of the bond in the Workington case, Workington Harbour & Dock Board v Trade Indemnity Co Ltd (No 2) [1938] 2 All ER 101, 105, Lord Atkin said:

“My Lords, both actions were brought on the money bond.” – That is the first and second actions. – “It is well established that in such an action the plaintiff has to establish damages occasioned by the breach or breaches of the conditions, and, if he succeeds, he recovers judgment on the whole amount of the bond, but can only issue execution for the amount of the damages proved.”

“The construction issue

Mr Beloff argued that the words “damages sustained by the main contractor thereby” had the effect of defining the appellants’ obligation solely by reference to the additional expenditure incurred by the respondents without reference to any sums which would normally be set against it in an action of damages against Chambers. Such a construction would involve treating these general words as an express exclusion of the normal legal incidents of suretyship. It would, as Mr Pollock for the appellants pointed out, also give rise to problems in the event of a final accounting between Chambers and the respondents producing an overall indebtedness by the latter to the former or a converse indebtedness less than the sum paid by the appellants under the bond. Mr Beloff’s answer to this difficulty was that the court might in appropriate circumstances imply into the bond a condition of repayment by the respondents to the appellants. A solution which does not appear to be particularly attractive.

There is no doubt that in a contract of guarantee parties may, if so minded, exclude any one or more of the normal incidents or suretyship. However if they choose to do so clear and unambiguous language must be used to displace the normal legal consequence of the contract – language such as was used in Hyundai Shipbuilding & Heavy Industries Co Ltd v Pournaras [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 502, 503 where the letter of guarantee provided:

“the [defendant] hereby irrevocably and unconditionally guarantees the payment in accordance with the terms of the contact of all sums due or to become due by the buyer to you under the contract and in case the buyer is in default of any such payment in default on behalf of the buyer . . .”

This was construed as enabling the shipowner to recover from the guarantors of the buyers and amount due irrespective of the position between yard and buyers: per Roskill LJ at p 5088. The words relied upon by the respondents however do not clearly displace those legal consequences. Indeed the use of the word “damages” is far more consistent with the compensation arrived at after taking into account all sums due to or by Chambers and the appellants. If the parties had intended to produce the result contended for by Mr Beloff it would have been a simple matter to use a form of words such as “the additional expenditure incurred.” Instead they have used words which if anything point away from such a result.”

I draw attention to the fact that once again it is clear that context is important. Furthermore even minor variations in language plus a different context can produce different results as the last paragraph of Lord Jauncey’s speech indicates since he is not saying that Hyundai was wrongly decided.

As to the reliance that Mr Collings placed on what in that case was said to be not a particularly attractive solution, context once again seems to me important. In that case the context was subcontractors and a building contract with the prospect of a battle over the minutiae involved in such disputes. In this case as Mr McGrath emphasised the context is a company run by the two shareholders borrowing money for a business over which those shareholders have complete control.

It is convenient to deal with the last point first. Mr McGrath emphasises the context just explained. He submits that these guarantees require the Van Der Merwes to pay what is certified as due. He submits that the language is clear and that if the Van Der Merwes have not put in place a right of indemnity from the company HPIE or some agreement giving the right to force the company to sue to recover any over payment for their benefit, that is the fault of the Van Der Merwes which should not prejudice IIG.

He in fact however goes further and submits that even if some express agreement has not been made between the Van Der Merwes and the company, the law or equity will come to the rescue. The law he submits would require the company to indemnify the Van Der Merwes to the full extent of whatever they had paid, they having paid the company’s debt on its behalf. He submits that HPIE would have no right when an indemnity was sought to argue that the Van Der Merwes have paid too much. He submits that the company’s obligation would be to indemnify and the company would have a right to recover any over payment from IIG. In this latter regard he relies on a dictum of Potter LJ in the Court of Appeal approving the analysis of Morison J at first instance in Cargill International SA v BSFIC [1998] 2 All ER 406.

The point is discussed in O’Donovan and Phillips at paragraph 13-54 and following. The judge seemed to be of the view that that paragraph supported an argument for the person liable under the bond or guarantee (i.e. in this case the Van Der Merwes) having a remedy directly against the overpaid payee. I cannot spell that out from those paragraphs and Mr McGrath did not seek to support that view. Mr McGrath had of course some interest in not supporting that view since a direct claim over might give rise to a more arguable case for allowing a set off to be raised even at this stage as against IIG seeking to enforce the guarantee.

Mr Collings submitted that the law would not imply any indemnity. He submitted that for a director to enter into an open ended commitment to pay sums which might not even be due could not be said to be an action in the best interests of the company. The law would accordingly not imply a term requiring the company to indemnify the directors. He submitted that the Van Der Merwes would have no direct claim over or if they did they should be allowed to raise that claim now.

I am not persuaded that the company would not be bound to indemnify the Van Der Merwes. It seems to me that where a loan agreement requires the giving of guarantees whether on demand guarantees or only secondary liability guarantees of that loan, a call and payment of what is found to be due from the guarantors will lead almost certainly to a right of indemnity from the company if the guarantee has to be paid.

Furthermore I am inclined to the view that even if there is no express contract negotiated between the Van Der Merwes and the company it is strongly arguable that the Van Der Merwes will have a remedy against the company and in my view if the company refused to seek return of the overpayment, the guarantors would have a right of subrogation by which they could force IIG to pay back sums found to have been overpaid.

But it seems to me that strictly what precise mechanism there might be for repayment is not the most relevant question when considering what the guarantees themselves require. If of course they do not require payment of the certified sum, then no difficulty arises. Leave to defend must be given so that the defences that the company could raise could be considered at a trial. If the guarantees by their clear language do require payment, then it was for the Van Der Merwes to protect themselves against that eventuality.

I should stress that even in a case where an on demand obligation is undertaken a question might arise when judgment was given, whether there should be a stay. That would depend on the strength or otherwise of the claim that some money would ultimately have to be reimbursed. The argument that if IIG are entitled to judgment, there should still be stay has never been run in this case. That would require some detailed consideration of the strength of claims made as a matter of New York law.

The question at the end of the day is what on the true language of these deeds of guarantee did the Van Der Merwes agree. I accept there is a presumption against these being demand bonds or guarantees; I also accept that the documents must be looked at as a whole. I accept that clause 3 which would only be necessary if the deeds were or might be undertaking a secondary liability, points in favour of the presumption and that there are other terms which appear in what I would call normal guarantees given to banks in relation to a customer’s indebtedness. It will thus only be if clear language has been used in the operative clauses that the presumption will be rebutted.

I turn thus to the operative language of the deeds of guarantee. By condition 2.1 the guarantor (Mr or Mrs Van Der Merwe) agreed “as principal obligor” “not merely as surety” that “if …the guaranteed moneys are not paid in full on their due date …it (the guarantor) will immediately upon demand unconditionally pay to the Lender (IIG) the Guaranteed moneys which have not been so paid”. The Guaranteed moneys are defined as “all moneys and liabilities ….which are now or may at any time hereafter be due, owing or payable or expressed to be due owing or payable, to the Lender from or by the borrower…”. The obligation to pay moneys “expressed to be due” “upon demand” “unconditionally” as “principal obligor” “not merely as surety” would indicate that the Van Der Merwes were taking on something more than a secondary obligation.

Clause 4.2 then provides that “A certificate in writing signed by a duly authorised officer …stating the amount at any particular time due and payable by the Guarantor…shall save for manifest error, be conclusive and binding on the Guarantor for the purposes hereof”. I agree with the judge that that clause puts the matter beyond doubt. Any presumption has by the language used been clearly rebutted. Apart from manifest error, the Van Der Merwes have bound themselves to pay on demand as primary obligor the amount stated in a certificate pursuant to clause 4.2.

Mr Collings before the judge attempted to run an argument based on manifest error. It was rejected by the judge in the following terms:-

“52.

Mr Collings fastened on the phrase in clause 4.2 “save in the case of manifest error”. A “manifest error” is one that is obvious or easily demonstrable without extensive investigation. Mr Collings referred to the decision of Thomas J in Invensys plc v Automotive Sealing Systems Ltd (8 November 2001). That was a case in which a certificate made by an expert was to be conclusive save in the case of manifest error. Thomas J held that the expert’s reasons could be examined in order to determine whether he had made a manifest error. But since the contract in that case provided for the expert to give reasons, Thomas J was undoubtedly right to say that the parties must have contemplated that those reasons could be examined to see whether any manifest error had been made. By contrast, in the present case the certificate was not required to contain any reasons. I did not derive any assistance from the Invensys case.”

The judge’s conclusion was not challenged in the appellants’ notice of appeal or in Mr Collings’ skeleton argument. When during the hearing clarification was sought as to whether Mr Collings was suggesting as an alternative to his other arguments manifest error, Mr Collings initially confirmed he was not seeking so to argue. On reflection however he made a submission to the same effect as he had made before the judge.

In my view the judge’s conclusion on manifest error was clearly right, and it was rightly not challenged in the notice of appeal.

I would accordingly dismiss the appeal.

I agree.

I also agree.