Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Hayward [2005] EWCA Civ 466

[2005] EWCA Civ 466Case No A3/2004/1976
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
[2004] EWHC 1798 (Ch)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
The Hon Mr Justice Evans-Lombe
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, WC2A 2LLDate 27/04/2005
Before
LORD JUSTICE KENNEDYLORD JUSTICE CLARKELORD JUSTICE JONATHAN PARKER
Between
LLOYDS TSB BANK PLCAppellantNORMAN HAYWARDRespondent
Anthony Boswood QC and Veronique Buehrlen (instructed by Osborne Clarke) for theAppellantSimon Berry QC and David di Mambro (instructed by Edwin Coe) for RespondentHearing Hearing dates : 22 and 23 March 2005
Judgment

Introduction

[1]In this action the appellant, Lloyd’s TSB Bank Plc (“the bank”), made claims under three guarantees given by the respondent, Mr Hayward. Those claims, which initially amounted to a total of £650,000 plus interest, came to trial before Rimer J. In the course of the trial the bank limited its claims to £400,000 plus interest. The bank succeeded and Rimer J gave judgment in its favour on 22 March 2002. Mr Hayward appealed to this court. The appeal, which was heard by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss P and Thorpe and Jonathan Parker LJJ, succeeded, the principal judgment being given by Jonathan Parker LJ. On 12 December 2002 the court ordered a new trial. The trial took place over six days in June 2004 and on 23 July 2004 Evans-Lombe J (“the judge”) gave judgment for Mr Hayward and dismissed the bank’s claims. The judge refused permission to appeal but on 12 November 2004 Chadwick LJ granted permission to appeal on two specific issues and directed that any renewed application for permission to appeal on the remaining issues should be determined by the court hearing the appeal, with the appeal to follow if permission was granted. The bank did renew its application on the remaining issues and we accordingly heard argument on all the issues, including issues raised by a respondent’s notice.

The facts and issues

[2]The order for a retrial made by this court on 12 December 2002 was “of the issue of what was agreed between the Claimant and Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Football Club Co Ltd at the meeting on the 23rd September 1994 and whether there was a subsequent variation of that agreement which had the consequence of discharging the Defendant from his guaranteed liabilities to the Claimant”. I shall call the Bournemouth & Boscombe Athletic Football Club Co “the club”. As appears from the above formulation, the issue is a narrow one and depends upon what was agreed at a single meeting on 23 September 1994 which took place nearly ten years before the judge heard the evidence. I shall call it “the meeting”.[3]The underlying facts have now been summarised three times, by Rimer J, by Jonathan Parker LJ and by the judge. I shall not therefore set them out again in detail here, except so far as necessary to resolve the issues before us. The relevant background facts are those which led up to the meeting. Mr Hayward was a director and the principal shareholder of the club. At some stage he became chairman. He had made loans to the club and entered into three guarantees to guarantee the club’s indebtedness to the bank. The guarantees, which were in similar but not identical form, were dated 24 October 1991, 23 June 1992 and 20 October 1992 and were limited to £500,000, £100,000 and £50,000 respectively.[4]Clause 8 of the first guarantee provided:
“The Bank may without any consent from me/us and without affecting my/our liability hereunder grant renew vary increase or determine any advances accommodation or facilities given or to be given to the Customer [the club]or any other person and agree with the Customer or any such person as to the application thereof hold renew modify or release or abstain from taking perfecting or enforcing any security or guarantee or right now or hereafter held for or against the Customer or any other person in respect of any liability hereby secured and grant time or indulgence to or compound with the Customer or any other person and demand or enforce payment for any one or more of us irrespective of whether or not it shall take similar action against the remainder of us and this guarantee shall not be discharged nor shall my/our liability under it be affected by anything which would not have discharged or affected my/our liability if I/we had been a principal debtor to the Bank instead of a guarantor.”
It was common ground that the other two guarantees contained clauses to similar effect and that none of the differences between the three guarantees is relevant to any of the issues in this action.[5]The issue before the judge was whether Mr Hayward was released from his guarantee by what has been referred to as the rule in Holme v Brunskill (1877) 3 QBD 494. It is not in dispute that the judge correctly stated the rule in this way. A guarantor is released from liability under a guarantee given to a creditor where, after the giving of the guarantee, the creditor and the principal debtor have entered into an agreement which has the effect of altering the contractual position between them to the disadvantage of the guarantor, without his prior consent. It is common ground that the authorities show that potential disadvantage to the guarantor is sufficient.[6]It was common ground at the trial that, if the rights of the club and the bank were solely to be determined by the terms of a written facility letter dated 23 September 1994 and if the rights of the bank against Mr Hayward were to be determined by the terms of the guarantees, including clause 8 or its equivalent, Mr Hayward would not be released from his guarantees by the rule in Holme v Brunskill.[7]It was also common ground that in order to be released from his guarantees Mr Hayward would have to show the following: i) that it was orally agreed between the bank and the club at the meeting that, if Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was called on to pay the instalment of £250,000 due on or before 30 June 1996, the club’s failure to repay that instalment would not be or would not be treated as an event of default under the facility letter and that the terms of the facility letter were in that regard replaced; ii) that the terms of clause 8 (or its equivalent) of the guarantees were varied, as between the bank and Mr Hayward, by the terms of what became known as the Hayward side letter so as to reinstate the rule in Holme v Brunskill; and iii) that the bank and the club entered into an agreement which brought the rule into operation.[8]The judge held that Mr Hayward had discharged the burden of proof in each of those three respects. The bank challenges the first two conclusions. It does not challenge the third because it accepts that it reached an agreement with the club on the terms of what became known as the Gardiner side letter, dated 3 October 1994, to which I will return below.

Dramatis personae

[9]As the judge observed in paragraph 9 of his judgment, it was accepted that Mr Hayward’s management of the club as its chairman had resulted in an improvement of its overall financial position in the years succeeding 1991. However, its financial position remained precarious and in 1992 Mr Ken Gardiner became a director and later finance director. By the end of 1993 a move was afoot, led by Mr Gardiner, for him to replace Mr Hayward as chairman. Mr Gardiner and his supporters became known as the consortium. The consortium included Mr Willis, who was or became vice-chairman of the club. Mr Gardiner had access to legal advice and the club was advised by its solicitor, Mr Alan Griffiths. Mr Hayward was advised by Mr Neil Meldrum of Coles Miller.[10]In September 1993 the banking relationship between the bank and the club was transferred from the retail to the commercial side of the bank. Mr Thomas was the head of the bank’s corporate recovery department and Mr Coombs was his assistant. Mr Burrage was the commercial manager. The bank was advised by its solicitors Osborne Clarke.

The background to the refinancing and the meeting

[11]In early 1994 there was a good deal of discussion between the bank, the club, the consortium and Mr Hayward as to the terms of a possible refinancing package which the judge described in paragraph 12 and following of his judgment.[12]On 1 August Mr Burrage wrote to Mr Gardiner on behalf of the bank setting out proposed terms for the bank’s continued support for the club. That letter included the following:
“I write following our meeting today to outline the revised proposed terms of the Bank’s support to the Football Club. The basis of the deal is as follows:- 1) The Bank confirms that when Consortium new money of £500,000 is injected into the account we will agree to write off the sum of £500,000. The write off will be effective at the end of year 8. 2) The sum of £2m will be advanced on a new 8 year term loan at 2% over base rate for year 1 and 2 rising to 3% over base rate thereafter. Capital repayments of £250,000 will commence on the 30th June 1995 then annually thereafter. A suitable covenant structure will need to be agreed upon. 3) The loan funds will be used to pay the existing overdraft. 4) A number 2 loan of £500,000 interest free will be created to complete the revised funding structure. 5) The existing guarantees detailed below will remain permanently in place until such time as other arrangements are mutually agreed. …. 6) A new Guarantee, acceptable to the Bank, will be provided by the Consortium members for £250,000 which will be released after the second loan repayment has been made in June 1996. 7) Norman Hayward’s guarantee of £650,000 will remain in place, but will reduce at a rate of 1:1 in line with the reduction in the Bank debt. …. You will appreciate that the Bank has not come easily to the decision to write off £500,000 and in so doing has demonstrated its full commitment to the future of the Football Club. We wish to work closely with the Consortium to ensure a full and speedy return to financial good health. This agreement will need to be more fully documented not least of which with a loan agreement and this will be prepared in due course.”
In his capacity as finance director Mr Gardiner noted the club’s agreement in principle by signing the letter. Year one ended on 30 June 1995, year two on 30 June 1996 and so on.

The basis of the deal is as follows:-

[13]As Mr Boswood correctly observed in the course of the argument, each of those concerned had different interests to protect. The bank wanted to protect its exposure as far as possible, while wishing to continue providing financial assistance to the club if it could. The club wanted to negotiate the best financial arrangement that it could in order to keep going. Mr Gardiner had the interests of the club at heart but also wanted to protect his personal position if he were to provide a guarantee to the bank. Mr Hayward wanted to reduce his exposure to the bank, to make the best deal that he could with regard to his shares in the club and to maximise his prospects of recovering the loans he had made to the club.[14]It had earlier been agreed in principle that the bank would increase its total support to £2.3 million. It can be seen from the letter of 1 August that essential features of the scheme at that time included capital repayments of £250,000 on 30 June 1995 and annually thereafter, a new guarantee of £250,000 to be provided by consortium members to be released after the second loan repayment by the club in June 1996 and the reduction of Mr Hayward’s guarantees of £650,000 at a rate of one to one in line with the reduction in the bank debt.[15]The judge said in paragraph 16 of his judgment that it was accepted that Mr Hayward did not play a substantial part in the club’s negotiations with the bank and that such part as he did play was directed to the recovery of his loans to the club and the reduction of his liability under his guarantees. I should set out the relevant terms of a letter dated 12 August which Mr Thomas wrote to Mr Hayward. I do so because it is plain from his evidence that Mr Hayward had the terms of this letter very much in mind during the meeting.[16]The letter read:
“Following the negotiations between “the Consortium” and the Bank, you have requested clarification as to how the £250,000 per annum reductions in the proposed loan would affect your own personal guarantee liability. As I see it the following scenario develops:- 1. The Club funds £250,000 annual debt reduction from cash flow – failing this 2. The new guarantors providing guarantees of £250,000 would then be called upon to meet the balance or all of the annual repayment in the first two years. 3. Your own personal guarantee liability, currently £650,000, would reduce pound-for-pound in line with the reductions achieved in the loan exposure as outlined in paragraphs 1 and 2 above. Consequently, the effect of this will be that your own guarantees will become payable only after:- a) The Club has failed to meet the annual repayment or, subsequently, b) The new guarantors I hope this clarifies matters to your satisfaction.”
As I see it the following scenario develops:- I hope this clarifies matters to your satisfaction.”

As I see it the following scenario develops:-

[17]There are some curiosities about the letter. I refer to only two. The first is that paragraph 2 might seem to suggest that the new guarantors were to provide two guarantees, each for £250,000. It is however common ground that it was not agreed either in the facility letter dated 23 September (referred to below), or in the oral agreement which the judge held to have been made at the meeting or otherwise at any stage before the terms of the Gardiner side letter were agreed that Mr Gardiner or any other member of the consortium would provide more than a single guarantee for £250,000.[18]The second curiosity is the way that something seems to have been omitted after the reference to “the new guarantors”. However, it seems to me that the letter naturally means that Mr Hayward’s guarantees would only be called upon if both the club and the new guarantors failed to meet the annual repayments due on 30 June 1996 and 30 June 1997. Thus Mr Hayward was given to understand that his guarantees would not be called upon until the club had failed to meet the instalments and the new guarantor or guarantors had failed to pay under his or their guarantees.[19]As the judge explained in paragraphs 18 and 19 of his judgment, the negotiations then broke down with the result that on 9 September the bank made a formal demand on the club and on 12 September made a formal demand on the guarantors including Mr Hayward. The total amount demanded including interest and charges was £2,282,652.35.[20]Notwithstanding the demands, negotiations continued and on 19 September Mr Willis sent a fax to Mr Thomas on behalf of the club “to set out an offer from the Club to the Bank to allow trading to continue”. The letter made it clear that Mr Gardiner was willing to offer a collateral backed guarantee for £250,000. In paragraph 23 of his judgment

the judge described the position immediately before the meeting thus:

“An internal note of the Bank written by Mr Thomas dated 20th September and headed “revised proposal” sets out the form of the final arrangement between the parties which the meeting on the 23rd September was intended to complete and which was ultimately carried into effect. The existing facility would be converted into a fixed loan of £2.35m divided into two tranches, tranche A, of £1.85 m would be repayable over 9 years by instalments of £250,000 per annum. Tranche B of £500,000 would be interest free, and so long as the other terms of the loan agreement were complied with, would be written off in the 8th year provided that the Club from its own sources had injected an equivalent sum of capital into the Club. There would be an immediate payment in reduction of the indebtedness of £150,000 brought about by two of the other guarantors paying immediately the total amount of their guarantees. Mr Hayward was to sell 4/5ths of his 61% holding of shares in the Club to the Consortium for £80,000 payable as to £40,000 immediately and the balance at a later date. The first instalment of £40,000 was to be retained by the Bank in a blocked account as security for Mr Hayward’s obligations under his guarantees. Those obligations would reduce in the manner already described in the correspondence. There would be no requirement for a repayment in the year to 30th June 1995. Mr Gardiner would give a guarantee limited to £250,000 to secure the next two annual repayments becoming due on the 30th June 1996 and 30th June 1997. In the note the arrangement is expressed to be “subject to £250,000 cash backed guarantee Ken Gardiner”
. Mr Gardiner was to back his guarantee by charging a sum of £250,000 held by him in a Jersey Bank account. The sum outstanding from the Club to the Bank at this time was somewhat less than £2.35m and it was understood that the surplus would be available to the Club as working capital. Mr Hayward was unhappy at the reduction of the facility to £2.35m but does not seem to have pressed his objection.” It was not suggested during the argument in this appeal that that was not an accurate summary of the position before the meeting.

The meeting and the facility letter

[21]The judge first described the meeting in paragraphs 24 to 27 of his judgment. The meeting took place at the club’s premises and lasted from about 11 o’clock in the morning until about 10.30 in the evening. It was attended by Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs for the bank, by Mr Gardiner, Mr Willis and three others for the club, by the club’s solicitor Mr Griffiths and by Mr Hayward and his solicitor Mr Meldrum, although Mr Meldrum did not join the meeting until some time between 5 and 6 o’clock in the afternoon, by which time the facility letter had been signed on behalf of the bank and the club. Although Mr Hayward was still nominally chairman, the negotiations were conducted on behalf of the club by Mr Gardiner as acting chairman. Mr Hayward did not play a part in the negotiations on behalf of the club. His concern at the meeting was essentially to protect his own interests.[22]A draft of the facility letter, which had been the subject of negotiation in the period running up to the meeting, was brought to the meeting by the bank. Its detailed terms were very little discussed during the meeting. By the facility letter the bank agreed to provide a further facility to the club which would largely have the effect of converting the club’s overdraft into a term loan but would also provide some further funds for the club. The facility was in the sum of £2,350,000. It contained a number of conditions precedent before the loan could be drawn down. One was the execution of “the New Guarantee”, which was to be given by Mr Gardiner and, as defined in the appendix to the facility letter, was “for an aggregate principal sum not exceeding £250,000 this guarantee to provide for its termination on 30th June 1997 subject to Tranche A having been reduced to £1.35 million on or before that date.”[23]The reference to Tranche A was to the provisions of clause 5 of the facility letter under which the total facility of £2.35 million was to be divided into two tranches, tranche A of £1.85 million and tranche B of £500,000. It is not necessary to set out the terms of the facility letter in any detail but clause 7.1 provided:
“Commencing from 30th September 1995 on the last day of March June September and December (or the next succeeding business day) each year until the Final Repayment Date the Borrower will make quarterly capital repayments of £60,000 to reduce Tranche A provided that failure to pay any such instalment shall not be an Event of Default if on or before the 30th June 1996 and in any year ending 30th June thereafter the Borrower has repaid not less than £250,000 to reduce Tranche A.”
Clause 14 of the facility letter provided for events of default on the occurrence of which the bank was entitled to recover from the club all of any outstanding indebtedness. The events of default included (a) default in payment on due date of any sums due and payable to the bank, (f) presentation of a petition to wind up the Club and (i) inability of the club to pay its debts within the meaning of section 123 of the Insolvency Act 1986 or otherwise. Clause 16.2 provided that the facility letter could only be amended or waived with the written agreement of both parties to it.[24]It is not I think in dispute that, on the true construction of the facility letter as executed, failure by the club to pay the sum of £250,000 on 30 June 1996, or indeed the further sum of £250,000 on 30 June 1997, would constitute an event of default which would entitle the bank to call in the whole loan and to make a claim against the guarantors, including both Mr Gardiner and Mr Hayward. Thus, if the club failed to pay any part of the sum of £250,000 on or before 30 June 1996, the bank would be entitled to demand payment under Mr Hayward’s guarantees, subject only to a pound for pound reduction if monies were recovered under Mr Gardiner’s guarantee.[25]At the trial it was common ground between the bank and Mr Hayward that by the end of the meeting the agreement between the various parties was not wholly contained in the written agreements between them. It was Mr Hayward’s case that by the end of the meeting it had been orally agreed between the bank and the club that the club would not be regarded as being in default for the purposes of clause 14 of the facility letter if payment of the first instalment of £250,000 due on 30 June 1996 was achieved by the bank by realisation of Mr Gardiner’s guarantee and, in particular, its cash backing. The bank denied that any such agreement had been reached but also, by contrast, said that it had been agreed that, if a call was made under Mr Gardiner’s guarantee in respect of the first payment due on 30 June 1996, that guarantee would need to be enhanced or another executed to secure the second repayment of £250,000 due on 30 June 1997.[26]The judge rejected the bank’s case that any such agreement was reached. He did so for the reasons given in sub-paragraphs (1) to (5) of paragraph 43 of his judgment, which are set out in detail over five and a half pages of transcript. The bank does not seek to challenge that part of the judge’s decision in this appeal. Its appeal is directed to the judge’s conclusion that the parties reached the oral agreement alleged by Mr Hayward.[27]Having so held, the judge then considered the next step in Mr Hayward’s argument. The club failed to pay the first instalment of £250,000 (or any part of it) on or before 30 June 1996. On 2 July it made a demand on the club for the whole amount of the loan, namely £2.35 million plus interest, and on the next day it made demands on Mr Hayward, Mr Gardiner and Mr Willis under their guarantees. It was not in dispute that the effect of the agreement which the judge held to have been made was that the bank was not entitled to call in the whole loan or make a demand under Mr Hayward’s guarantee until the club failed to pay the instalment which would be due on 30 June 1997. Mr Hayward was thus in a more favourable position than he would have been if the terms of the facility letter had remained unaltered by the oral agreement. That is so even though, as Mr Boswood observed in argument, there may have been other events of default upon which the bank might have relied under clause 14 of the facility letter, such as the club’s inability to pay its debts.[28]The next step in Mr Hayward’s argument was that the effect of the Hayward side letter (which I consider further below) was to disapply clause 8 of the first guarantee and the equivalent provisions in the other guarantees. The judge so held.[29]Finally, the judge held that the effect of the Gardiner side letter dated 3 October 1994 (to which I also return below) was that the club and the bank agreed that, if the bank called on Mr Gardiner’s guarantee either in whole or in part in respect of the instalment of £250,000 due on 30 June 1996, the club would procure the provision of a further guarantee to replace it in order to secure the payment of the instalment due on 30 June 1997. He further held that failure to provide such a guarantee would be an event of default entitling the bank to call in the whole loan and thus trigger Mr Hayward’s liability under his guarantees and that it followed that Mr Hayward was put in a potentially worse position than he was in under the agreement, including the oral agreement, reached at the meeting. It further followed that Mr Hayward was discharged from his liability under the guarantee by the rule in Holme v Brunskill.

The issues in the appeal

[30]Chadwick LJ gave the bank permission to appeal on two issues. The first was whether the bank was bound by the oral agreement which the judge found to have been made at the meeting and the second was whether the judge correctly construed the Hayward side letter. The issues upon which Chadwick LJ refused permission to appeal essentially challenge the central conclusion of the judge that any oral agreement was made at the meeting. It is convenient to consider first the question whether the judge was wrong to conclude that any such oral agreement was reached. In doing so, I will also consider the question whether the bank was bound by any such agreement, which is the substance of the question raised by the first issue upon which permission to appeal was granted.

The oral agreement

[31]Mr Boswood advanced a number of powerful arguments in support of the conclusion that no oral agreement was reached and I would grant permission to appeal on that question. In considering whether the appeal should be allowed it is, however, important to have in mind the restricted role of an appellate court on an appeal of this kind. The assessment of evidence, especially oral evidence, is essentially a matter for the trial judge and it is only in rare circumstances that this court will interfere with a judgment made after a trial at which the judge has heard oral evidence from a number of witnesses whose credibility is in issue: see eg Assicurazioni Generali SpA v Arab Insurance Group BSC [2003] 1 WLR 577.[32]This is a good example of such a case. When this court considered the appeal from the decision of Rimer J, the reason why it allowed the appeal was that the judge had not made a finding on the question when a particular note made by Mr Thomas (“the Thomas note”) had been made. As Jonathan Parker LJ observed in paragraph 65 of his judgment, had the judge found that the Thomas note was prepared after the meeting, that must at the very least have provided a significant degree of corroboration of Mr Hayward’s evidence, and thrown a corresponding degree of doubt on the reliability of the recollection of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs. The court then specifically considered whether it would be appropriate for it to attempt to resolve the question when the Thomas note was written or whether a new trial should be ordered. Jonathan Parker LJ put it thus in paragraph 67:
“A finding that the Thomas note was prepared after the 23 meeting would inevitably raise doubt as to the reliability of the evidence of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs, but it must in my judgment be for the trial judge to assess whether, despite that doubt, their evidence should be accepted.”
[33]Butler-Sloss P and Thorpe LJ agreed with that conclusion and with Jonathan Parker LJ’s reasoning, notwithstanding the fact that, as Thorpe LJ put it at paragraph 78, by the date of a retrial the events under investigation would probably be “nine years stale” and, in so far as the judge was reliant on the documents, he would be in no better position than this court to decide the probabilities. See also per Butler-Sloss P at paragraphs 82 to 85. In the result all three members of the court concluded that the just course was to order a retrial at which the trial judge would assess all the evidence, including the oral evidence of Mr Hayward and Mr Thomas, and perhaps others.[34]Mr Boswood’s submissions on behalf of the bank are collected in the bank’s skeleton argument under these headings: the necessity for clear and compelling evidence, the legal effect of statements made by the bank to Mr Hayward, the recollection of Mr Meldrum, the contemporary notes, commercial sense and the Thomas note. I shall consider those topics, albeit not in the same order.

Clear and compelling evidence

[35]Mr Boswood, who did not appear before the judge, submits that the judge and the parties seem to have lost sight of the parol evidence rule stated in Goss v Lord Nugent (1833) 5 B&Ad 58 at 64 that “where there be a contract which has been reduced to writing, verbal evidence is not allowed to be given … so as to add to or subtract from, or in any manner to vary or qualify the written contract.” Mr Boswood submits that in the face of an apparently complete written contract there is a “very strong” presumption that the written contract contains all the terms agreed between the parties: Gillespie Bros & Co v Cheney Eggar & Co [1896] 2 QB 59 per Lord Russell CJ at p 62. However Mr Boswood correctly recognises that all depends upon the circumstances. Indeed the bank’s skeleton argument quoted this statement from paragraph 12-098 of the 29th edition of Chitty on Contracts; “No doubt, in practice, where a document is produced which appears to be a complete contract, a party will experience considerable difficulty in proving, on the balance of probabilities, that further contractual terms were agreed outside the written terms of the documents. But extrinsic evidence of such terms is not ipso facto excluded.”[36]I agree with that proposition. Unsurprisingly this point was not put in this way before the judge because both the bank and the club were saying that a binding oral agreement had been reached during the meeting, notwithstanding the fact that the facility letter was signed in the course of it. The fact that the bank does not challenge the judge’s rejection of the oral agreement it was asserting enables it to make the forensic points now taken on its behalf. However, in my opinion it does not provide any basis for allowing the appeal. It is to my mind clear from the judgment that the judge was well aware of the fact that the facility letter was signed and that the burden was on Mr Hayward to establish the oral agreement which he said was made before the meeting came to an end. There is no reason to think that the judge was not well aware of the general principles relied upon by Mr Boswood.

Position of Mr Hayward

[37]The role of Mr Hayward is closely related to the last point. This was not a simple negotiation between just two parties, the club and the bank. It involved others, including crucially Mr Hayward and Mr Gardiner. Mr Gardiner had two hats which he was wearing at the same time, that of acting chairman of the club and that of guarantor. Indeed during the meeting he left for a time in order to obtain independent advice as to his personal position. Mr Hayward also had two hats, although he was not wearing his club hat during the meeting. He was there to protect his position as shareholder and guarantor and, if possible, his position as lender to the club.[38]Mr Boswood submits that nothing said to Mr Hayward could have varied the contract between the bank and the club. However, that is in my opinion to look at the position too narrowly. There were discussions between the various parties, notably Mr Hayward, Mr Gardiner, the club and the bank. It is true that the facility letter was signed part way through the meeting but its precise terms were not discussed in detail and the meeting continued thereafter for some hours. The bank’s representatives remained and, as I read the judgment, the judge treated the agreements reached by the end of the meeting as agreements between all four participants.[39]As Mr Berry observed in the course of the argument, the judge made it clear in several parts of his judgment that he was considering whether the bank and the club had made a further binding agreement before the end of the meeting. In paragraph 1 he set out the issue which this court ordered to be retried (quoted above). In paragraph 36 he set out terms of reference which had been agreed before Lightman J on 11 November 2003 should stand as agreed terms of reference for the retrial. They included:
“What (if anything) was agreed between the Bank and the Club at the 23/9/94 meeting in addition to the Facility Letter or which qualified its terms? In particular: (a) was it agreed (as Mr Hayward alleges) that if Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was called upon in respect of the first £250,000 repayment the Club would have until the 30/6/97 to make the second payment without being in default? (b) was it agreed (as the Bank alleges) that if a call was made under Mr Gardiner’s guarantee in respect of the first payment that guarantee would need to be enhanced or another executed to secure the second payment of £250,000?” (It was the second question which (as indicated above) the judge answered in the negative in paragraph 43 of his judgment.) It is plain from the formulation of the questions that the judge was seeking to answer that he was focusing on the question whether, in each case, an agreement was made between the club and the bank. In paragraph 45 he put the same point explicitly as follows: “As I have already pointed out and as Mr Justice Rimer points out at paragraph 56 of his judgment, in order to succeed in his defence Mr Hayward must establish an agreement by the Bank with the Club so that the Club would not be regarded as being in default for the purposes of clause 14 of the Facility Letter if payment of the first instalment of £250,000 due on 30th June 1996 was achieved by the Bank by realisation of Mr Gardiner’s guarantee and, in particular, its cash backing.”
Having posed the correct question, the judge considered the evidence relating to it and the arguments advanced on behalf of the bank in some detail.[40]He considered what he described as three contemporaneous or near contemporaneous file notes of the meeting in paragraphs 38 to 41, the evidence relating to question (b) including in particular that of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs from the bank in paragraph 43, the evidence of Mr Hayward in paragraphs 47 and 48 and the evidence and submissions relied upon by the bank between paragraphs 49 and 57. The judge placed particular reliance upon the Thomas note and in paragraph 59 expressed his conclusion that he could accept Mr Hayward’s account of the meeting. He made it clear in paragraph 61 that he had held that that agreement altered the terms of the facility letter.[41]I am not persuaded that he was wrong so to hold. Although Mr Hayward was not representing the club at the meeting, all four parties, namely the bank, the club, Mr Gardiner and Mr Hayward were closely interested in both the agreement between the bank and the club and the terms of the guarantees given by Mr Gardiner and Mr Hayward to the bank. The terms of the facility letter and of the guarantees, although made by different parties, were closely related and in a real sense bound up together. As I read the judge’s conclusions when viewed in their context, the judge regarded the discussions as involving all four parties and the agreement asserted by Mr Hayward, which the judge held to have been made out, as being both between the bank and Mr Hayward and between the bank and the club. He was in my opinion entitled to reach that conclusion.[42]Indeed, any other view would be much too narrow and would not reflect the commercial realities. The judge was entitled to hold that a final binding agreement between the parties was not finalised until the end of the meeting. For these reasons I would not uphold the bank’s appeal on the first ground upon which permission to appeal was granted.

Was the judge wrong to hold that an oral agreement was made?

[43]It is in this connection that the topics identified by Mr Boswood arise, namely the recollection of Mr Meldrum, the contemporary notes, commercial sense and the Thomas note. In short Mr Boswood submits that there are a series of factors which lead to the conclusion that the judge was wrong to accept Mr Hayward’s evidence. They include the following, which is not an exhaustive list of every point he made.[44]Mr Hayward initially raised a plethora of defences which did not include the point upon which he succeeded at the trial. Mr Meldrum’s note of the meeting contains no reference to the alleged agreement and he has no recollection of it. He was present during the part of the meeting during which the agreement was said to have been made and he accepted in evidence that, if he had thought that an important variation was being made to the facility letter he would have noted it at the time, which he did not. None of the contemporary notes of the meeting supports the agreement, which is in any event inconsistent with the events which immediately succeeded the meeting, including the Gardiner side letter. The agreement makes no commercial sense and the terms of the Thomas note do not justify upholding Mr Hayward’s case.[45]There is undoubted force in some of those considerations. The difficulty from the bank’s point of view is, however, that to which I have already referred. The judge heard the oral evidence both of Mr Hayward and of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs and preferred that of Mr Hayward. He did so after a careful analysis of the relevant documents and after considering the probabilities. I am not sure what conclusion I would have reached if I had been the trial judge, but I was not. I did not therefore have the advantage of hearing the evidence. I recognise of course that that advantage can be overstated, that the relevant events took place a long time ago and that we can analyse the documents as well as the judge. However, the assessment of different types of evidence is essentially a matter for the trial judge and, in order to succeed on appeal, the bank must persuade us that the assessment made by the judge was wrong. For my part, I am not persuaded that his assessment was wrong.[46]As indicated above, in paragraph 43 of his judgment the judge gave his detailed reasons for rejecting the bank’s positive case that it was agreed that, if a call was made under Mr Gardiner’s guarantee in respect of the first payment, that guarantee would need to be enhanced or another executed to secure the second payment of £250,000. That involved a detailed consideration of the evidence of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs. The judge rejected their evidence that such an agreement was made. He held that it was not supported by the contemporaneous or near contemporaneous notes but, importantly, he placed particular reliance on the Thomas note.

The Thomas note

[47]This was the note made by Mr Thomas which (as explained above) led to this court ordering the retrial. It was in these terms:
“Ken Gardiner Gtee Yr to 30/6/95 - no problem to 6/96 a) Club pays £250k - no problem b) Club pays £150k Gtee pays £100k - 100k light in gtees for 1/7/96 – 6/97 Require £100k new gtees c) Club pays nil Gtee pays £250k - 250k light in gtees for 1/7/96 – 6/97 Require £250k new gtees to avoid demand in year 3 If new gtees not forthcoming:- Club needs to find £250k by 30/6/97 to avoid default Demand made 1/7/97 Appendix 20 – Gtee returned when £500k repayt made by 30/6/97 Facility Letter needed a clause “if demand made on KG in year before 30/6/96 then replacement gtee of that level up to £250k needed for year to 30/6/97”
. Yr to 30/6/95 - no problem b) Club pays £150k Gtee pays £100k - 100k light in gtees for 1/7/96 – 6/97 Require £100k new gtees c) Club pays nil Gtee pays £250k - 250k light in gtees for 1/7/96 – 6/97 Require £250k new gtees to avoid demand in year 3 Gtee pays £250k - 250k light in gtees for 1/7/96 – 6/97 Require £250k new gtees to avoid demand in year 3 Club needs to find £250k by 30/6/97 to avoid default Demand made 1/7/97

Appendix 20 – Gtee returned when £500k repayt made by 30/6/97

[48]At the time of the trial before Rimer J, and indeed of the first appeal, there was no firm or clear evidence as to when the note had been made. By the time of the retrial the bank had obtained the opinion of a handwriting expert and, in the light of that opinion, it was common ground that the note was made either on 3 October 1994 or soon thereafter. Although Mr Thomas had no recollection of writing the note, he gave an explanation of it in his statement prepared for the retrial, which the judge set out in paragraph 43(5) of his judgment. The judge rejected that explanation. He held that the note was internally consistent and amounted to a ‘what if’ review of the position in the light of the facility arrangements between the bank and the club as they stood at the conclusion of the meeting. He added:
“One of the set of circumstances tested was that which actually occurred i.e. where the Club pays nothing in the year to 30th June 1996. Mr Thomas appears to be accepting that the loan would continue notwithstanding that Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was discharged by payment, unsecured by any replacement guarantee. He also seems to be accepting that in order to avoid an event of default on the 30th June 1997 the Club would either have to find repayments of £250,000 by that date, or a further guarantee available to be claimed on at that date, in the event that no payment was made or a sum less than £250,000 had been paid by the Club as of that date. The final three lines of the note appear to acknowledge that the provisions of the Facility Letter did not carry into effect the Bank’s objective of obtaining guarantees securing payment of both the first two annual instalments of £250,000.”
[49]The judge further held that that analysis of the note was consistent with subsequent events. In my opinion his analysis of the note is convincing. Moreover, I agree with him that the analysis is important, not only because it throws doubt on the reliability of the evidence of Mr Thomas in connection with the issue whether the bank’s alleged oral agreement had been established, but also because it gives support for the oral agreement alleged by Mr Hayward. After considering the detailed submissions advanced on behalf of the bank, which included most (if not all) of those now advanced by Mr Boswood, the judge made it clear in paragraph 59 of his judgment that the Thomas note played an important part in his acceptance of Mr Hayward’s evidence in this regard and in his reaching a different conclusion from that reached by Rimer J. He did so in these terms:
“In the result I have come to the conclusion that I can accept Mr Hayward’s account of his oral agreement made with Mr Thomas at the meeting on the 23rd September as a result of which he completed his side of the overall bargain by transferring 4/5ths of his shares in the Club to the consortium and depositing the first £40,000 of the purchase price with the Bank as security for his obligation under his guarantees, without which the whole arrangement would not have proceeded. In doing so I have departed from the factual conclusion of Mr Justice Rimer at the first trial. As anticipated by the Court of Appeal the primary cause of this difference of result lies in the dating of the previously undated note of Mr Thomas which seems to me, as it seemed to the Court of Appeal, to be inconsistent with the Bank’s evidence of what resulted from the September 23rd meeting. Mr Hayward said that he could remember and was sure that his description of his exchange with Mr Thomas at the 23rd September meeting was substantially correct. I can accept that this may well be so even though ten years have passed since the event itself. This was an aspect of the negotiation which very much concerned Mr Hayward and which he specifically raised. His account appears to me to be consistent with the post September 23rd documents and the events they describe.”
[50]The judge was, in my judgment, entitled to treat the Thomas note as a strong pointer to the conclusion that Mr Hayward’s evidence should be accepted. The note seems to me to suggest that the bank thought that if the guarantor, that is Mr Gardiner, paid £250,000 in respect of the instalment due on 30 June 1996, the bank would either require “£250k new guarantees to avoid demand in year 3” or, if new guarantees were not forthcoming, the “Club needs to find £250k by 30/6/97 to avoid default Demand made 1/7/97”. The clear implication of, if not express statement in, that last phrase is that, in the absence of new guarantees, which the note seems to recognise had not been agreed, the bank could not make a default demand if the club found £250,000 by 30 June 1997. That interpretation of the note is consistent with Mr Hayward’s case that it was agreed that, in the event of the club’s failure to pay the instalment due on 30 June 1996 but Mr Gardiner paid under his guarantee, the bank would not (at any rate other things being equal) call in the loan unless and until the club failed to pay the next instalment due on 30 June 1997.

The evidence of Mr Meldrum and the other notes

[51]The judge had regard to countervailing submissions made on behalf of the bank. For example he referred to the evidence of Mr Meldrum. Mr Boswood points to the fact that in paragraph 43(3) the judge relied upon the fact that Mr Meldrum did not note an agreement of the kind asserted by the bank as an indication of the fact that no such agreement was made and asks why the judge did not point to the same absence of a note as an indication of the fact that no agreement of the kind asserted by Mr Hayward was made. That submission undoubtedly has some forensic force, although (as Mr Boswood recognises) the judge did describe the absence of a note as a weakness in Mr Hayward’s case. Mr Meldrum’s evidence was that various ‘what if’ examples were discussed. He did not, however, make a note of any of that part of the discussion. Although I recognize the force of the point that Mr Meldrum said that he would have noted any agreement that had been made, that was, as I see it, but one factor for the judge to take into account.[52]I accept the submission that the other contemporary notes do not support Mr Hayward’s case in that they do not mention an agreement of the kind upon which he relied. The judge recognised that fact in paragraph 50 of his judgment. They were a bank file note prepared from rough notes which were not retained, as explained in paragraphs 38 and 39 of the judgment, the note made by Mr Meldrum referred to in paragraph 40 and a club note stated to be minutes of a board meeting referred to in paragraph 41. It is also right to say that, with the possible exception of the bank’s note, the notes do not positively contradict the existence of such an agreement but, more importantly, they have to be read in the light of the Thomas note.[53]As to the bank’s note, which was prepared by Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs, the judge said that, in the light of Mr Thomas’ evidence in his witness statement and in cross-examination, he did not accept that the relevant sentences in the note were necessarily to be read as a record of what was actually agreed at the meeting, as opposed to what would need to be done in the future: see eg paragraphs 38, 43(4) and 53 of the judgment. Mr Boswood submits that, having so held in the context of the bank’s positive case, the judge failed to appreciate that the note was inconsistent with Mr Hayward’s case. The relevant part of the note read:
“A new guarantee for £250,000 has been taken from Ken Gardiner, who sought independent legal advice during the day, supported by cash deposit of £250,000 at Jersey branch, account 0218811. Guarantee remains in force until 30th June 1997 and underwrites £250,000 per annum repayments due in year 2 and 3. Any call on the guarantee during year 2 will require its enhancement back to £250,000 for continuation in year 3. Cash support may be replaced by alternative collateral acceptable to the Bank.”
[54]As put in the bank’s skeleton argument, Mr Boswood submits that on the judge’s findings, having solemnly agreed at a meeting that if Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was called in year two no further guarantee would be required in year three, Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs recorded precisely the opposite (albeit as something to be done in the future) in their file note. He submits that there could be no justification for a finding of such duplicitous conduct. However, for my part I do not think that that is an appropriate characterisation of the position on the judge’s findings. It does not seem to me to be correct that the judge was finding that Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs solemnly agreed at a meeting that if Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was called in year two, no further guarantee would be required in year three. Mr Hayward’s case was that it was agreed that, if Mr Gardiner’s guarantee was called upon in respect of the repayment due on 30 June 1996, the club’s failure to pay would not be or be treated as an event of default. It was not that there was any express collateral oral agreement that no further guarantee was required.[55]Less significantly perhaps by comparison with the Thomas note, the judge referred in paragraph 51 to an internal minute of 12 March 1996, recording a meeting between Mr Gardiner and Mr Randall, Mr Thomas’ successor’s assistant, to discuss the Club’s financial situation, in which this passage appears:
“4 £275,000 is currently owed to Customs and Revenue. To get the Club through to the start of the next season, Ken believes, including these prefs, a total of £400,000 is needed to cover ongoing expenses. This excludes our loan repayment due at the end of June when Ken seems quite content for us to rely on his guarantee and cash securities.”
The judge correctly observed that that note is certainly consistent with the bank not treating a recourse to Mr Gardiner’s guarantee as an event of default under clause 14 of the facility letter, although I would accept that it does not carry the matter very far because, as Mr Boswood submits, it is also consistent with the view that it was open to the bank to decide whether it treated a recourse to Mr Gardiner’s guarantee as an event of default under clause 14.

Post meeting events

[56]Some reliance is placed upon a letter written by Mr Thomas to Mr Gardiner on 26 September, which was the first working day after the meeting, and both to Mr Gardiner’s response and to the Gardiner side letter. The sequence of events, which is considered in some detail by the judge in paragraphs 27 to 31 of his judgment, was as follows. On 26 September Mr Thomas wrote to Mr Gardiner about his proposed guarantee, which had been promised at the meeting. In paragraph 2(b) of the letter Mr Thomas drew attention to the club’s commitment to repay a minimum of £250,000 per annum in the year to 30 June 1996 and in the year to 30 June 1997 and added:
“If the Club do not meet this commitment then your Guarantee will be called in part, or full, to achieve the £250,000 per annum. If any call is made on the Guarantee prior to 1st July 1997 then you will reinstate the Guarantee to £250,000, with supporting security, for the remainder of that period.”
[57]Mr Boswood submits that, if the parties had indeed reached an agreement of the kind asserted by Mr Hayward and found by the judge, it is astonishing that Mr Gardiner did not reply that he had not agreed to provide a further guarantee and, moreover, that there could be no question of his doing so because the bank and the club had agreed that if his guarantee was called in in respect of the repayment due on 30 June 1996, the club would not be in default but would have until 30 June 1997 to make the next repayment of £250,000. There is again undoubted forensic force in this point but it seems hardly likely that it was lost on counsel for the bank at the trial or on the judge.[58]It is not easy to evaluate because Mr Gardiner was not called to give evidence at the trial. In paragraph 54 of his judgment the judge noted the bank’s reliance on the fact that Mr Hayward did not call Mr Griffiths or Mr Gardiner to give oral evidence at the trial but said that the bank could also have called them and that neither was naturally Mr Hayward’s witness. Mr Boswood criticises that approach but it seems to me that the failure of either Mr Hayward or the bank to call them is essentially a neutral factor.[59]In these circumstances it seems to me to be largely a matter of speculation why Mr Gardiner did not mention the agreement. One possibility is, of course, that no such agreement was reached, as Mr Boswood submits. Another is that, wearing his club hat, Mr Gardiner was anxious to ensure that relations with the bank remained good and he wanted to meet its requests, so far as he could, provided that his own exposure was not excessive. What in fact happened was that Mr Griffiths replied on 30 September to the letter written to Mr Gardiner on 26 September. Mr Griffiths’ letter asserted that Mr Gardiner said that the passage from the earlier letter quoted above was incorrect and that it should have read:
“If the Club do not meet this commitment then your Guarantee will be called in in part or in full up to a total of £250,000 being the total sums guaranteed by you under the above Guarantee.”
As the judge observed in paragraph 29, that new draft omitted the provisions of paragraph 2(b) of the bank’s 26 September letter which would have required Mr Gardiner to “re-instate” his guarantee back to £250,000 in the event that any demand was made under that guarantee “prior to the 1st July 1997”. Mr Gardiner was thus protecting his own personal position in order to avoid providing a guarantee or guarantees totalling more than £250,000.[60]That letter was received on 3 October and on the same day Mr Thomas faxed to Mr Griffiths a draft replacement letter to be written to Mr Gardiner and countersigned by him in which paragraph 2(b) omitted any reference to re-instatement of Mr Gardiner’s guarantee but added as sub-paragraphs (c) and (d):
“(c) It is a condition of continued Bank support that each of the first two years repayments are guaranteed. If, therefore, any call is made, in part or full, prior to the 1st July 1996 then replacement guarantees in an acceptable form to the Bank, of equivalent level will be put in place to secure the repayment due in the year to 30th June 1997. If these are not available the facility will be considered in default. (d) Your personal liability is limited to £250,000 as outlined in the guarantee document.”
[61]The judge noted that the bank’s copy of this draft letter has a handwritten note by Mr Thomas “for discussion/agreement with Ken”. The judge recorded in paragraph 31 that what then happened was this. On 6 October Mr Griffiths wrote to Aldridge and Brownlee, who were solicitors from whom separate advice was being sought by Mr Gardiner on the guarantee he was being asked to sign, enclosing a copy of the draft letter “confirming terms of the guarantee”. Their response dated 17 October contained a postscript recording the fact that on 21 October Mr Gardiner signed the guarantee and also countersigned a copy of the draft letter dated the 3 October. The guarantee is in the bank’s standard “all monies” form but with a proviso limiting liability to £250,000. It is the counter-signed letter dated 3 October which has been called the Gardiner side letter.[62]It is not, as I understand it, in dispute in this appeal that the Gardiner side letter evidenced an agreement both between the bank and Mr Gardiner and between the bank and the club. In any event it plainly did. In this regard I agree with the judge’s conclusion to that effect in paragraph 60 of his judgment. On that footing, it on any view amounted to a variation of the facility letter, first because it imposed a further obligation on the club to provide security, namely new guarantees to replace that of Mr Gardiner if his guarantee should be called on in whole or in part in respect of the repayment due on 30 June 1996 and, secondly because it introduced a new event of default if the club should not procure the provision of such further security.[63]It is submitted on behalf of the bank that, if there was indeed an agreement that failure to pay by the club on or before 30 June 1996 was not to be an event of default, it is surprising (to put it no higher) that no-one complained about the terms of the Gardiner side letter. There is I think some force in this point, although

the judge said this about it in paragraph 54 of his judgment:

“It is common ground that in the autumn of 1994 the Club was badly in need of immediate cash to pay wages. It may well be that the Gardiner side letter, and the supplemental agreement which it may record, was entered into by the Club through Mr Gardiner in order that the Bank’s facilities should not be further delayed. Mr Meldrum’s evidence was that, whereas he received a copy of the Gardiner side letter at least by the 18th November, he did not pay much attention to it because it did not seem to him directly to concern Mr Hayward. Mr Hayward could not recollect ever seeing a copy of the letter at any material time.”
[64]These are all relevant considerations to weigh in the balance. Although there is force in Mr Boswood’s submissions, they only go so far. One view of the side letter seems to me to be that it affords at least some support for Mr Hayward’s case because of the express provision that failure to provide a further guarantee was expressed to be an event of default. It may be that the bank thought that it should include an express provision to that effect because it might have been thought that, absent such a provision, the effect of the oral agreement found by the judge would have prevented the bank from calling in the loan before the club failed to pay the instalment due on 30 June 1997. It is difficult to know what was thought.[65]The case is to some extent bedevilled by the fact that, on the judge’s findings of fact in paragraph 43(2) of his judgment, when Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs were at the meeting they erroneously thought that the facility letter provided for a guarantee of up to £500,000 in respect of the two years. After setting out some of the evidence of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs

the judge said this:

“It seems, therefore, that Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs were taking the view that Mr Gardiner’s guarantee would not be discharged on realisation by the Bank of the maximum amount for which it provided but would, in some way, continue to be effective in a succeeding year to guarantee a further sum of £250,000. In any event it was their evidence in cross-examination that they had been advised by the Bank’s solicitors that the Facility Letter provided for guarantees of both of the first two repayment instalments. In the light of this evidence neither Mr Thomas nor Mr Coombs can have been looking for a further oral agreement binding the Club to provide a replacement guarantee in the event that payment had been made under Mr Gardiner’s guarantee during the year to the 30th June 1996. They thought they had one already with the directors acceptance of the terms of the Facility Letter.”
Although that conclusion was directly related to the question whether the oral agreement alleged by the bank had been made, it is relevant to the credibility and/or reliability of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs as witnesses and to the inferences, if any, to be drawn from what happened thereafter. The Gardiner side letter seems to me to be consistent both with Mr Hayward’s view of the agreement and with the bank’s appreciation afterwards that it needed a second guarantee because by then it had realised that no such agreement had been made.

Conclusions

[66]The whole of this discussion seems to me to underline the point I have already stressed as to the role of the trial judge. He had to consider the oral evidence in the context of a number of documents not all pointing in the same direction. Notwithstanding the strength of the points made by Mr Boswood, it seems to me to be very difficult, if not impossible, for this court to say that the conclusion reached by the judge was wrong. The reason which Chadwick LJ gave for refusing permission to appeal on this part of the case was that the bank seeks to challenge, directly, findings of fact made by the judge after seeing the witnesses. That is correct. Moreover, it is plain that the judge formed an unfavourable view of the reliability of Mr Thomas and Mr Coombs as witnesses. It is almost impossible for this court to hold that he was wrong to do so.[67]Finally I should add that I am not persuaded that the agreement alleged by Mr Hayward made no commercial sense. The bank was receiving a guarantee from Mr Gardiner backed by cash which it did not have before. It wanted to assist the local football club and thus wanted to assist an orderly handover between Mr Hayward and Mr Gardiner and was willing to reduce Mr Hayward’s guarantee on a pound for pound basis. The arrangement held by the judge to have been made seems to me to be consistent with the letter of 12 August 1994 quoted above and to make sense in the context of ongoing support to the club. Although it can be said, as Rimer J said in paragraph 68 of his judgment, that the agreement “deprived the bank of a material slice of the legal rights conferred on it by clause 7.1 and 14 of the written agreement”, it is not easy to see why Mr Gardiner should have agreed to provide a guarantee in the sum of £250,000 in the knowledge that if it was called upon the bank would nevertheless be entitled to call in the whole loan at the same time. It seems to me to have been a sensible commercial arrangement from the point of view of all parties for the bank to acquire a cash backed guarantee from Mr Gardiner on the basis that, even if that guarantee was called upon the club would have until 30 June 1997 to provide a further £250,000 and (other things being equal) to be able to continue trading at least until 30 June 1997. After all, the bank would have received the sum of £250,000 due on 30 June 1996, albeit from Mr Gardiner and not from the club.[68]I am conscious that I have not focused on every point discussed in argument but for the reasons I have given I am not persuaded that the judge was wrong to accept Mr Hayward’s evidence that an oral agreement was reached before the end of the meeting which had the effect of altering the terms of the facility letter. I would therefore dismiss the appeal on the oral agreement point and on the first ground on which permission to appeal was given.

The Hayward side letter

[69]I have already set out the terms of the Gardiner side letter, which altered the terms of the facility letter. As stated earlier, Mr Hayward’s case is that the effect of that letter was to entitle him to rely upon the rule in Holme v Brunskill. However, before he could succeed on that point he had to displace clause 8 (or its equivalent) of the guarantees.[70]The provenance of the Hayward side letter was the discussion during the meeting. As the judge put it in paragraph 32 of his judgment, it was of concern to Mr Meldrum and Mr Hayward that once Mr Hayward relinquished his control of the club, the club and the bank might renegotiate the financial arrangements between them which would adversely affect the rate at which Mr Hayward’s liability under his guarantees to the bank would be diminished. It was with that in mind that at the meeting Mr Meldrum negotiated with Mr Thomas a form of side letter signed by the Bank and addressed to Mr Hayward to protect Mr Hayward in this regard.[71]After the meeting there was correspondence between Mr Thomas for the bank and Mr Meldrum for Mr Hayward and on 28 September Mr Meldrum sent to Mr Alan Griffiths a copy of the signed share sale agreement and guarantee and a copy of the form of side letter which he said he understood had been agreed between the club and Mr Hayward. It appears that the final form of the letter was agreed before 3 October. It is dated September, is the letter known as the Hayward side letter and reads as follows:- “In the event that [the Club] or [the Bank] should seek to either:(a) Renegotiate the loan arrangement between the Club and the Bank as set out in the Facility Letter from the Bank to the directors of the Club and dated the 23rd September 1994 or(b) Enter into any new alternative or other loan arrangements of whatsoever nature Then and in either case the Club agree that no such arrangement shall be effected without the consent in writing of Norman Hayward where the renegotiation may result in the guarantee repayment schedule set out in the Facility Letter being altered to the detriment of Norman Hayward for the period whilst liability to the Bank in respect of the Club’s facilities may be outstanding provided that in any event Norman Hayward’s consent shall not be necessary where the putting into the effect of any such arrangements would result in an absolute discharge of any liability Norman Hayward may have to the Bank.”[72]It is not, so far as I am aware, in dispute that the agreement between the bank and Mr Hayward contained in or evidenced by the Hayward side letter was made before the agreement between the bank and the club contained in or evidenced by the Gardiner side letter. It is common ground that on 3 October Mr Thomas wrote to Mr Hayward summarising the position between the bank and Mr Hayward and saying in the penultimate paragraph:
“We acknowledge and understand the contents of the letter from The Club to you of even date, a copy of which is annexed hereto, in respect of any renegotiation of the loan arrangements between the Bank and the Club and confirm that we will not agree any such matters as referred to in this letter without your consent in writing.”
It is also common ground that the reference to “the letter from The Club to you of even date” is a reference to the Hayward side letter.[73]As I see it, Mr Boswood correctly submits that it is a question of construction of the Hayward side letter, and indeed the Gardiner side letter and the letter just quoted, whether the contract contained in or evidenced by the Gardiner side letter was a renegotiation of the loan arrangements within the meaning of the Hayward side letter.[74]I agree with Mr Boswood that Mr Hayward had to show: i) that there was a “renegotiation of the loan arrangements between the Club and the Bank as set out in the Facility Letter”; ii) that the renegotiation resulted in an “alteration to the guarantee repayment schedule set out in the Facility Letter”; and iii) that that alteration was or was potentially to Mr Hayward’s detriment. i). Was there a renegotiation?[75]Mr Boswood submits that there was, on Mr Hayward’s case (and thus on the findings of the judge), no renegotiation of the loan arrangements between the club and the bank as set out in the facility letter, but rather a renegotiation of what was orally agreed at the meeting. I would not, however, accept that submission because it seems to me to give much too narrow and literal a construction to the words of the Hayward side letter. Like the terms of any contract, the particular provision under scrutiny must be construed in the context of the agreement as a whole, which in turn must be considered against its surrounding circumstances or relevant background or matrix.[76]On the footing that the parties reached an agreement at the meeting which had the effect of varying the terms of the written facility letter, it would make no commercial sense to conclude that the renegotiation referred to in the Hayward side letter referred not to a renegotiation of the terms finally agreed at the end of the meeting but only to a renegotiation of the written terms agreed earlier. The purpose of the side letter was to protect Mr Hayward and ensure that the loan arrangements between the bank and the club should not be altered without his consent. That purpose would be frustrated if the protection the letter afforded him was only in respect of some of the terms agreed between the parties. The judge held that the oral agreement was made between the bank and the club and that it was more favourable to Mr Hayward than the agreement in its written form. In these circumstances it was plainly of considerable importance to Mr Hayward that he should be protected against any change in the overall contractual position between the bank and the club without his consent.[77]In these circumstances the expression “loan arrangements between the Club and the Bank as set out in the Facility Letter” naturally means the loan arrangements as set out in the letter as varied by the oral agreement. If the officious bystander had been asked whether the parties could have intended the new agreement to relate only to the unvaried terms of the facility letter he would have testily have said “of course not”.[78]That view seems to me to be consistent with the letter of 3 October from the bank to Mr Hayward quoted above. The reference to “any renegotiation of the loan arrangements between the Bank and the Club” naturally refers to any renegotiation of all the terms of the loan arrangements and not simply those in the written facility letter.[79]The view is also consistent with the conclusion in paragraph 78 of the judgment of Jonathan Parker LJ on the appeal to this court from the decision of Rimer J. It seemed to me to be right to consider this point again independently of the view previously expressed by the court but, having done so, I respectfully agree with it.[80]It follows that I would hold that there was a relevant renegotiation of the loan arrangements. ii). Alteration to the guarantee repayment schedule?[81]Mr Boswood submits that the reference to the guarantee repayment schedule must be a reference to the timing of the repayments to be made by the club as set out in clause 7.1 of the facility letter. He submits that that is made clear by statements in two documents. The first is paragraph 4 of Mr Meldrum’s note of the meeting, which reads in relevant part as follows: “After some considerable discussion on this point, it was conceded by the Club and the Bank that if the Club sought to renegotiate the borrowing in any manner the renegotiation of which would or might have an adverse affect on the programme of repayment by Norman, then such renegotiation could not be put into place without the consent of Norman. We agreed a form of wording which it was accepted that I would look at again the following morning to fax off to Ken Gardiner. The wording we initially agreed was as follows: ‘That should the Club at any time seek to renegotiate the loan arrangements with Lloyds Bank as set out in the Facility Letter of 23rd September 1994 or otherwise, such negotiations shall not be included unless the club can ensure that the guarantee reduction programme is upheld and Norman Hayward’s payments shall not be prejudiced and that any future arrangement will have the same guarantee reduction programme and Norman Hayward’s consent shall be obtained in any event.’” (My emphasis) ‘That should the Club at any time seek to renegotiate the loan arrangements with Lloyds Bank as set out in the Facility Letter of 23rd September 1994 or otherwise, such negotiations shall not be included unless the club can ensure that the guarantee reduction programme is upheld and Norman Hayward’s payments shall not be prejudiced and that any future arrangement will have the same guarantee reduction programme and Norman Hayward’s consent shall be obtained in any event.’” (My emphasis)[82]The problem with the Meldrum note from the point of view of the bank seems to me to be demonstrated by the parts I have italicised. The first part shows that the purpose of the Hayward side letter was to protect Mr Hayward if the bank and the club should “renegotiate the borrowing in any manner the renegotiation of which might have an adverse effect on the programme of repayment” by Mr Hayward. It seems to me that in the note Mr Meldrum had in mind a renegotiation of any of the terms of the borrowing and not just of the terms in the written facility letter. That conclusion is reinforced by the words “as set out in the Facility Letter … or otherwise” in the draft set out in the note.[83]I note in passing that the note reinforces the conclusion expressed earlier that discussions continued between the club and the bank after Mr Meldrum arrived at the meeting.[84]The second statement is in the bank note of the meeting and is as follows:
“Hayward has obtained a side undertaking from the Club, that should they seek to renegotiate with the Bank at any stage they will have to replace his guarantees so that the rate of reduction, as per the facility letter, ie £250,000 per annum commencing 30/6/95 is not jeopardised.”
That statement seems to me to be wide enough to include a renegotiation of any of the terms of the borrowing.[85]The reference in Mr Meldrum’s note to the programme of repayment by Mr Hayward and the reference in the second document to Mr Hayward’s payments and to the guarantee reduction programme are references to Mr Hayward’s liabilities under his guarantees. I do not think that either document supports the view that the reference in the Hayward side letter to “the guarantee repayment schedule set out in the Facility Letter” is a reference only to the repayment schedule in clause 7.1 of the facility letter.[86]That is essentially for the reasons already given and expressed by Jonathan Parker LJ in his earlier judgment. It made no sense for the parties to limit the protection given to Mr Hayward to a renegotiation of the written terms of clause 7.1. As Jonathan Parker LJ put it, by the time of the side letters and (I would add) on the judge’s findings of fact, all parties knew that the terms of repayment in the facility letter had been varied so that payment by Mr Gardiner under the terms of his guarantee in respect of the repayment due on 30 June 1996 would avoid the club’s failure to pay that instalment amounting to or being treated as an event of default entitling the bank to call in the whole loan, while at the same time reducing Mr Hayward’s exposure under his guarantees by £250,000.[87]There is no “guarantee repayment schedule” referred to as such in the facility letter. To my mind the expression is naturally wide enough to include the contractual arrangements between the bank, the club and Mr Hayward reached at the meeting whereby in the circumstances just described (other things being equal) the bank would not treat non-payment by the club as an event of default unless or until it failed to pay the next instalment due on 30 June 1997 and would not make a claim on Mr Hayward’s guarantees (now reduced to a total of £400,000) until then.[88]On that basis the question is whether the Gardiner side letter resulted in an alteration in the contractual arrangements made between the bank and the club at the meeting. The answer is plainly yes because its effect was to change the position just described. Under it the club was bound to procure the provision of a new guarantee and failure to do so was expressed to be an event of default. Such an event of default was a new event of default and one which would entitle the bank to call in the loan and trigger Mr Hayward’s liability under his guarantees long before 30 June 1997. iii). Detriment.[89]The remaining question is whether the alteration to which I have just referred would be to the detriment or potential detriment of Mr Hayward. It would in my opinion plainly be to his potential detriment for the reasons just given. It would potentially provide the bank with a further event of default on which it could rely and expose him to the real risk of his guarantees being called on nearly a year earlier than might otherwise have been the case. That is to my mind so even though there might have been other events of default upon which the bank could in principle rely. It appears to me that the express provision in the Gardiner side letter gave express notice to the club that the bank would or might rely upon this new event of default. The only purpose of expressly providing for such an event of default can have been to enable the bank to rely upon it. The bank’s right to do so was potentially detrimental to Mr Hayward.

Conclusion

[90]The judge reached the same conclusions. In my opinion he was entitled to do so. Although there was some debate at the hearing of the appeal as to the circumstances in which the terms of the Gardiner side letter were agreed without being shown to Mr Meldrum or Mr Hayward, it is not necessary to discuss those circumstances here because it is not suggested that Mr Hayward was asked to or did consent to its terms. The effect of the Hayward side letter was in effect to vary clause 8 (or its equivalent) of the guarantees and to reinstate the rule in Holme v Brunskill. By the terms of the Hayward side letter the bank was not entitled to enter into the Gardiner side letter without Mr Hayward’s consent. Yet it did so. The effect of doing so was to alter the terms of the loan arrangements between the bank as creditor and the club as principal debtor to the potential detriment or disadvantage of Mr Hayward as guarantor. It follows that Mr Hayward was released from his liabilities under the guarantees by reason of the rule in Holme v Brunskill. It follows that I would dismiss the appeal on the second ground upon which permission to appeal was originally granted.

CONCLUSION

[91]For these reasons I would dismiss the appeal and uphold the decision of the judge, essentially for the reasons he gave.[92]I agree.[93]I also agree.