Neville v Licardy

In *Neville v Licardy* [1996] NSWCA 387, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered a dispute concerning the enforceability of a guarantee. The appellant, Mr. Neville, sought to enforce a written guarantee provided by the respondent, Mr. Licardy, in favour of a company. The central issue was whether the guarantee, which was not signed by the guarantor, was nonetheless binding on Mr. Licardy.

The court was required to determine whether the guarantee was enforceable against Mr. Licardy, notwithstanding the absence of his signature. This involved an examination of the requirements for a valid guarantee under the Statute of Frauds, specifically whether the guarantee was sufficiently evidenced in writing and signed by the party to be charged, or whether other principles of law, such as part performance or estoppel, could render it enforceable.

The Court of Appeal held that the guarantee was not enforceable. Applying the principles of the Statute of Frauds, the court found that a guarantee must be evidenced in writing and signed by the party to be charged. As Mr. Licardy had not signed the guarantee, and there was no sufficient evidence in writing signed by him to satisfy the statutory requirement, the guarantee was void. The court rejected arguments that Mr. Licardy's conduct amounted to part performance or created an estoppel, finding that his actions did not unequivocally point to the existence of the guarantee in a manner that would justify overriding the statutory requirement for a signed writing.

Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of the primary judge in favour of the respondent was upheld.