![BL-2022-000438 - [2025] EWHC 2212 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png){kind=logo}
The Construction Issues
The Construction Issues
The JVA and SJVA were the subjects of detailed argument by the parties during the course of trial. Aside from the dispute over whether a guarantee was given and, if so, how it operated, which is considered below as part of the Guarantee Validity Issues - there was also a dispute between the parties over the profit and loss sharing arrangements under the JVA (clauses 1, 6 and 15) and also the payment waterfall for any recoveries made by the Company (clause 5(e)). These points are addressed first as they provide useful context when considering the other issues.
There was no dispute between the parties on the approach to be adopted on contractual interpretation which have been set out authoritatively in cases such as Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank [2011] UKSC 50 and Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36.
- Heading
- I direct that no official shorthand note shall be taken of this Judgment and that copies of this version as handed down may be treated as authentic Introduction
- The Parties and other relevant persons
- The Land
- The Contractual Arrangements
- General Observations on the Evidence The oral witness evidence
- The recollection of witnesses generally
- The central issues for determination
- The Construction Issues
- The profit sharing arrangements under the JVA
- The payment waterfall under the JVA
- The Guarantee Validity Issues
- Validity Issue 1: Did Mr Kazolides provide a guarantee under the JVA?
- The argument that the joint venture was intended to be a 50/50 arrangement and the guarantee is inconsistent with that arrangement
- The failure to name Mr Kazolides expressly and the Statute of Frauds
- Whether Mr Michael had authority to enter the guarantee
- Validity Issue 2: Should clause 18 be rectified to name Mr Kazolides as the Guarantor?
- The Limitation Issues
- Limitation Issue 1: Is the Limitation Period 6 or 12 years?
- Limitation Issue 2: What is the test for insolvency under clause 5(c)?
- Limitation Issue 3: Was the Company in default more than 6 / 12 years before the issue of the claim?
- The expert evidence on valuation of the Property
- The Liabilities of the Company in March and December 2010
- The solvency of the Company in early March 2010
- Cashflow insolvency
- Legal Principles
- Variation of the contract between creditor and debtor
- Agreement between creditor and debtor to give debtor additional time to pay
- Breach by the creditor
- Grounds for Discharge
- Discharge Ground 1: Material change in the JVA due to the execution of the SJVA
- Discharge Ground 2: Mr Dunn giving an extension of time for payment by the Company
- Discharge Ground 3: Breaches of or a departure from the terms of the JVA in relation to the timing of the sale of the villas and other matters relating to the joint venture
- Discharge Ground 4: An oral agreement between Mr Dunn and Mr Kazolides
- Other matters
- Conclusions