Nicom Interiors Pty Ltd v Circuit Finance Pty Ltd

Nicom Interiors Pty Ltd sought to enforce a guarantee executed by Circuit Finance Pty Ltd in relation to the payment obligations of a third party. The defendants, Circuit Finance, argued that the guarantee was not valid as it was not properly executed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria. The primary issue before the court was whether the guarantee executed by Circuit Finance was valid and enforceable. A secondary issue was the proper law governing the guarantee and whether it was subject to Victorian law.

The court found that the guarantee was a deed and was therefore required to be sealed or expressed to be a deed. The court found that the guarantee did not contain any language expressing it to be a deed, and that it was not signed in the presence of a witness, meaning it was not properly executed. The court then considered whether the rule in Pigot's case applied, which provides that where a party is added to a joint guarantee after the guarantee has been executed, the guarantee is still valid. The court found that the rule did not apply, as the guarantee in question was not a joint guarantee, but rather an individual guarantee executed by Circuit Finance. The court then considered the proper law of the guarantee, and found that the guarantee was subject to Victorian law, as the principal contract was governed by Victorian law.

The court found that the guarantee was not valid and enforceable, and dismissed the claim with costs.