Bondin v Lamaro

In *Bondin v Lamaro* [1994] NSWCA 29, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr Bondin, and the respondent, Mr Lamaro, concerning the enforceability of a guarantee. The core of the disagreement revolved around whether Mr Bondin had validly executed a guarantee in favour of Mr Lamaro, thereby making him liable for a debt owed by a company.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the guarantee provided by Mr Bondin was legally binding. Specifically, the central legal issue was whether the guarantee satisfied the requirements of the *Statute of Frauds 1677* (1984) (NSW) (as it was then applicable), which mandates that guarantees must be in writing and signed by the party to be charged. The court had to assess the evidence presented to ascertain if these statutory requirements had been met.

The Court of Appeal found that the guarantee was not sufficiently signed to satisfy the *Statute of Frauds*. While there was evidence of Mr Bondin's intention to be bound, the signature on the document did not meet the legal standard for a valid guarantee under the statute. The court applied the principles of contract law and statutory interpretation, focusing on the strict requirements for enforceability of guarantees. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the guarantee was deemed unenforceable against Mr Bondin.