Guarantees in Shipbuilding Contract
Guarantees are essential ancillary documents in shipbuilding contract. Two
recent cases highlight the importance of careful attention to its legal technicalities
and enforceability.
In Sea Emerald SA v.
Prominvestbank Joint Stockpoint Commercial Industrial and Investment Bank (a),
the bank issued a refund guarantee for payments made to a shipyard under a shipbuilding
contract. It was held that the signatory (who was the Head of the Bank’s
Regional Branch) had no authority to issue the guarantee.
In CIMC
Raffles Offshore (Singapore) Limited and Yantai CIMC Raffles Offshore Limited v
Schahin Holding SA (b) the shipyard applied for summary judgment on a
guarantee was given by a holding company for the sums due on delivery of two
drilling rigs to their buyers. The Court
of Appeal discussed the doctrine in Holme v. Brunskill [1877] 3
QBD 495 and the doctrine in Trade Indemnity Company Limited v.
Workington Harbour and Dock Board [1937] AC 1. It also examined the following questions:
What is the purview doctrine?, Do the
anti-avoidance provisions of the guarantee, including the provisions for the
guarantor’s liability as a primary obligor, exclude the purview doctrine?, If
they do not, are the post-guarantee amendments sufficiently fundamental to lie
outside the guarantee’s purview?, Can these questions be answered sufficiently
confidently, in the absence of reviewing the matrix of the guarantee, to admit
of summary disposal?
The Court of Appeal (by a majority
decision), allow the guarantor’s appeal and dismiss the builder’s cross-appeal.
Significantly, Sir Bernard Rix noted (at
paragraph 65 line 14), that “Prudence would in any event have dictated that the
guarantor should have been asked for a new guarantee or for a formal indication
of consent”
References:
(a)
[2008] EWHC 1979 (Comm), [2008] 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep Plus 96.
(b)
[2013] EWCA Civ 644
Comments