The High Court has ruled that James Seymour is liable under a personal guarantee for a reduced balance owed by Donmour Vending Limited to BWG Foods Unlimited Company, trading as Value Centre. The dispute concerned a trade account and a guarantee signed in November 2014; the judgment does not state the amount of the reduced balance.
Donmour had opened a trade-credit account with BWG under a customer registration form dated 25 November 2014. The company later consented to judgment in BWG’s favour, but had not paid the debt. BWG then sought judgment against Seymour under his written guarantee of Donmour’s liabilities for goods supplied. The court said the guarantee covered debts becoming due from the date it was signed and was not retrospective.
Seymour argued that a repayment plan agreed the previous day separated an older balance from later purchases. He said payments were intended to cover current purchases, and that purchases after the guarantee were made on a cash-on-delivery basis. BWG accepted that some payments were made in cash or by cheque, but said the account continued to operate as a normal trade-credit account, subject to a €250,000 credit limit. Under the plan, purchases above that limit were to be paid for in cash, bank draft or card.
The court rejected BWG’s argument that Seymour was estopped from contesting liability because Donmour had consented to judgment. The company and its director were separate legal persons, and Seymour could take a different position in his own case. The court also rejected BWG’s contention that Seymour’s defence amounted to mischaracterisation: it treated the dispute as opposing views of the account’s operation.
On the payment dispute, the court found no agreement requiring payments to be applied to current purchases instead of older invoices. It concluded that the account balance rose and fell with payments, and that BWG’s chronological allocation of payments was consistent with the parties’ dealings and their contractual arrangements. The court also disregarded an undated document BWG relied on because Seymour denied receiving it and there was no objective evidence it had been sent.
The court said that bringing the account below its credit limit did not prevent BWG from suing for amounts already extended and still unpaid. It concluded that BWG had established its claim for the reduced balance identified in a credit manager’s affidavit, assuming that was the full amount still claimed and outstanding. The judgment does not specify the sum or set out a separate formal order entering judgment against Seymour.