If the signature is not authorised then the guarantee is not effective. Section 4 of the Statute of Frauds Act 1677 provides that a guarantee must be in writing and signed by the guarantor or a person authorised by it in order to be effective. In this case, the defendant, F G Hawkes (Western) Limited (“FGH”) claimed that they had not authorised the signature on the guarantee. The claim against them was in excess of US $450,000 plus interest.
Having heard all the evidence, the Judge decided that it was overwhelmingly likely that whoever signed the guarantee with its distinctive signature was duly authorised to do so. There were many documents disclosed which had the same signature. The probability was that these other documents were signed by the same signatory as the guarantee, with authority from FGH. It was unrealistic that FGH were unaware of these documents. The Judge also relied on the adverse view she took of FGH’s witness. She concluded that the authority was either expressly given or impliedly given from a course of dealings.
This case demonstrates that where the authority of the signatory is dispute, evidence can be produced to establish that it was either expressly given or impliedly given by a course of dealings.
A/S Dan Bunkering Limited v F G Hawkes (Western) Limited and others [2009] EWHC 3141
