Whether Mr Michael had authority to enter the guarantee
Whether Mr Michael had authority to enter the guarantee
I reject the suggestion advanced in Mr Kazolides’ witness statement that he never gave authority to Mr Michael to provide any guarantee on his behalf in relation to the Company.
Mr Michael had a power of attorney to act for Mr Kazolides which expressly and clearly included, at paragraph (f), authority to enter a guarantee. Mr Kazolides accepted that he knew that Mr Michael had signed the JVA on his behalf. Mr Michael’s covering email of 29 August 2006 confirmed that he would be signing the JVA as attorney for Mr Kazolides. Mr Michael’s letter to Mr Dunn’s solicitors dated 29 August 2006 explained that he had signed the JVA as Mr Kazolides’ attorney pursuant to the power of attorney and enclosed both the signed JVA and the power of attorney. That letter was copied to Mr Kazolides at an address in Cyprus.
Mr Kazolides accepted in his oral evidence that he would have read the JVA and the JVA clearly included a guarantee. Although, as noted above, the JVA did not define the term “Guarantor” / “Guarantors”, I consider that it would have been obvious to Mr Kazolides that he was giving a guarantee through this clause. Mr Kazolides tried at a later stage in his oral evidence to suggest that he had not read the guarantee clause but I did not find that evidence credible.
- 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
![BL-2022-000438 - [2025] EWHC 2212 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)