Henricks v Agnew

In *Henricks v Agnew*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute between the appellant, Mr Henricks, and the respondent, Mr Agnew, concerning the enforceability of a guarantee. The primary issue revolved around whether Mr Agnew had validly revoked his guarantee before the debt was called upon.

The Court was required to determine whether Mr Agnew's purported revocation of his guarantee was effective in discharging his liability. This involved an examination of the principles governing the revocation of continuing guarantees, particularly in circumstances where the creditor had not yet acted upon the guarantee by advancing further funds or suffering detriment.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the established legal principle that a continuing guarantee, which is not given for a specific period or for a specific advance, may be revoked by the guarantor at any time before it is acted upon by the creditor. However, the revocation must be communicated to the creditor. In this instance, the Court found that Mr Agnew had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that his revocation had been effectively communicated to Mr Henricks. Consequently, the revocation was deemed ineffective, and Mr Agnew remained liable under the guarantee.

The appeal was dismissed, and the orders of the primary judge were affirmed.