Summary judgmentFacility agreementSuretiesScheme of arrangementPrima facie defence
Tags
BankingSummary judgmentSuretyshipScheme of arrangement
legislation
Statutes Cited
E
u
r
o
p
e
a
n
C
o
n
v
e
n
t
i
o
n
o
n
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
H
u
m
a
n
R
i
g
h
t
s
A
c
t
1
9
9
8
P
r
i
s
o
n
A
c
t
1
9
5
2
P
r
i
s
o
n
R
u
l
e
s
1
9
6
4
(
S
I
1
9
6
4
/
3
8
8
)
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A
c
t
1
9
6
7
C
r
i
m
i
n
a
l
J
u
s
t
i
c
e
A
c
t
1
9
9
1
C
r
i
m
e
(
S
e
n
t
e
n
c
e
s
)
A
c
t
1
9
9
7
M
u
r
d
e
r
(
A
b
o
l
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
D
e
a
t
h
P
e
n
a
l
t
y
)
A
c
t
1
9
6
5
P
a
r
o
l
e
B
o
a
r
d
R
u
l
e
s
1
9
9
7
(
S
I
1
9
9
7
/
1
6
4
7
)
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
A
c
t
1
9
7
1
I
m
m
i
g
r
a
t
i
o
n
a
n
d
A
s
y
l
u
m
A
c
t
1
9
9
9
M
a
g
n
a
C
a
r
t
a
1
2
1
5
B
i
l
l
o
f
R
i
g
h
t
s
1
6
8
9
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant can enforce payment against surety where it agreed to scheme of arrangement with principal debtor","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Scheme of arrangement registered 12 July 2017; fifth respondent is surety"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant bank entered into a facility agreement with the first respondent for purchase of buses and vehicles, with individual respondents as sureties. When the first respondent defaulted on repayment of US$282,528.76, the parties entered into a court-registered scheme of arrangement. The applicant later sought summary judgment against the fifth respondent surety, who opposed on grounds that the scheme of arrangement stayed all claims.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases