Actionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering, In Gl En SPA, Saint-Gobain Glass UK Limited: CA 10 Oct 2001

The claimant sought payment for works undertaken. They had been given a promise that in return for not withdrawing their workforce from the site, the second defendants would redirect payments due to the first defendant to the claimant. When it came to it, they asserted that that agreement was void under the Act since it was not evidenced in writing. At this stage the issue was whether the agreement was a guarantee or an agreement accepting a primary obligation. They answered that since the liability was contingent upon non-payment it was not a primary obligation. Held In these cases the court must look to the substance more than the form. The agreement fell within the act, and no estoppel arose.

Judges:

Lord Justice Simon Brown, Lord Justice Peter Gibson and Lord Justice Tucke

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1477, [2002] 1 WLR 566, [2002] TCLR 10, [2002] 4 All ER 468, [2002] BLR 44, [2002] CLC 153

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Statute of Frauds 1677 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedMotemtronic Limited v Autocar Equipment Limited CA 20-Jun-1996
The parties said: ‘Mrs Ford: Where would money come from if M [the principal debtor] had to repay andpound;1 million? Colin Searle [the second defendant, M’s chairman]: From wherever in the group the money was at the relevant time. I’ll make sure it . .
CitedHarburg India Rubber Comb Co v Martin CA 1902
The defendant had been a member of a syndicate which owed money to the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained judgment against the syndicate and tried (unsuccessfully) to execute a writ of fi fa. The defendant then gave an oral promise that, if the . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromActionstrength Limited v International Glass Engineering In Gl En SpA and others HL 3-Apr-2003
Actionstrength agreed with Inglen to provide construction staff to build a factory for St-Gobain. Inglen failed to pay. Actionstrength claimed against for the amount due. Inglen went into liquidation. The claim was now against St-Gobain. The claim . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Contract, Construction, Estoppel

Updated: 03 July 2022; Ref: scu.166541