• Menu
  • Skip to right header navigation
  • Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to secondary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer

Before Header

Call us now  07 4688 2188

  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Manifesto
    • Our Future
    • CGLaw COVID Protocol
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
  • Careers
  • Community
    • 2021 Artist in Residence Program
  • Contact Us
  • Search
  • About
    • Our Origin Story
    • Our Manifesto
    • Our Future
    • CGLaw COVID Protocol
    • Toowoomba
    • Brisbane
    • Sunshine Coast
  • Careers
  • Community
    • 2021 Artist in Residence Program
  • Contact Us
  • Search

Mobile Menu

  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube
  • Our Team
  • Practice Areas
  • Knowledge
  • Events
  • Industries
  • For Individuals

The $55 million mistake! Decision highlights need for strict drafting compliance

You are here: Home / News / The $55 million mistake! Decision highlights need for strict drafting compliance

In the case of Santos Limited v BNP Paribas, the failure to print the words “authorised signatory of Santos Limited” in an execution clause meant that a letter of demand for $55 million under a bank guarantee was invalid. The Court upheld the principle of strict compliance, finding that the letter of demand lacked some of the essential requirements outlined in the bank guarantee for making a successful claim under the guarantee.
 
The decision should serve as a pertinent reminder that the validity of legal documents can turn on technical details that might appear to be minor.
 
Background
 
In Santos Limited v BNP Paribas, Santos Limited made a demand against BNP Paribas under an unconditional bank guarantee for $55 million, which had been issued to Santos by BNP to secure the performance of certain obligations by Fluor Australia Pty Ltd.
 
On the basis that the terms of the demand did not strictly comply with the requirements set out in the bank guarantee, BNP refused to meet the demand. The guarantee stated that BNP was required to pay $55 million to Santos, provided they received a letter of demand “in the form of the letter attached to this Bank Guarantee (amended as applicable) purporting to be signed by an authorised representative of the Beneficiary”.
 
The draft letter attached in Annexure A to the bank guarantee included the following terms:
Yours faithfully

…………….
Authorised signatory of
Santos Limited.
However, Santos’s letter of demand issued to BNP did not use those words and was instead signed as:
 
Yours sincerely,
Santos Limited – GLNG Upstream Project
 
[a handwritten signature appeared]
Rob Simpson
General Manager Development
 
 
The Decision
 
The Court found that strict compliance with the terms of the bank guarantee was needed in order for the demand to be valid.
 
The case was initially heard in the Queensland Supreme Court, with the trial judge finding that the letter by Santos did not trigger BNP’s obligation to make the $55 million payment. Santos then appealed, but the Queensland Court of Appeal upheld the earlier decision, dismissing Santos’ claim.
 
The Queensland Court of Appeal noted that there was no particular law governing the execution and terms of a bank guarantee or letter of demand, but the explicit requirement for the letter to be “in the form of the letter attached” and “purporting to be signed by an authorised representative of the Beneficiary” were legally binding.
 
The Court concluded that there was no way for BNP to confirm that Mr Simpson (the signatory for Santos) was in fact an authorised representative of Santos. This was despite the demand being issued on Santos’s letterhead, the words “Santos Limited” appearing above Mr Simpson’s signature and the statement of Mr Simpson’s position. These factors merely indicated that Mr Simpson was employed by Santos and held a position of General Manager Development in the company, none of which proved his authority to make the demand or sign on behalf of the company.
 
Key takeaways
 
There are several key takeaways from this case.

  1. Parties should where possible, use the exact language or words required by the terms of the bank guarantee.
  2. When making demands on a bank guarantee, it is vital that parties ensure that all of the essential requirements of the demand are strictly adhered to.
  3. Any words that do not meet the requirements of a demand may lead to the demand being invalidated.

Beneficiaries should carefully review all bank guarantees and similar documents before making a demand. Where possible, a lawyer should be hired to review or draft letters of demand to ensure that they are valid.

Bank guarantees are often provided as security for tenants’ obligations under leases. Currently in Australia, there are some restrictions on landlords calling on the security provided by their tenants in some cases due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Once those restrictions are lifted, we anticipate that landlords of tenants who are unable to recover from the COVID-19 pandemic may need to call on the security provided by their tenants to satisfy their tenants’ obligations under their leases.

Landlords would be well advised to heed this decision – while their mistake may not cost $55 million as it did in this case, it may mean the difference between recovering something or recovering nothing in these straitened times.

If you need advice as to whether this decision may affect you, your demands or your business, please don’t hesitate to contact our Commercial + Property Team.

Previous Post: « Adaption grant offers wide range of options to spend $10k
Next Post: Casual employees and WorkPac Pty Ltd – not again! »

Primary Sidebar

We can help

Amanda Tolson

Director

Carly Brailak

Special Counsel

Lisa Hooper

Lawyer

Sally Fraser

Conveyancing Paralegal

Tracey Gust

Paralegal

Carol Redgen

Conveyancing Paralegal

Heath Knox

Commercial + Property Paralegal

Maddison Klingner

Legal Secretary

Related Alerts

June 7, 2022
Fair Work upholds decision to dismiss for IP disclosure  

A recent decision of the Fair Work Commission to uphold the dismissal under the...

May 31, 2022
I am selling my business, but what about the employees?

Selling or purchasing a business is an exciting milestone in any business owner’s career....

March 31, 2022
Superannuation payment requirements extended

A new bill introduced into federal parliament will see compulsory superannuation payments extended to...

View other alerts

Footer

Clifford Gouldson Lawyers

CLIFFORD GOULDSON LAWYERS
P: 07 4688 2188
F: 07 4688 2199
mail@cglaw.com.au
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Locations

TOOWOOMBA (Head Office)
Level 1, 610 Ruthven Street,
Toowooomba Q 4350

PO Box 8208,
Toowoomba South Q 4350

Toowoomba Office

BRISBANE
Suite 1805, Level 18,
239 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4000

PO Box 12802 George Street,
Brisbane Q 4003

Brisbane Office

 

SUNSHINE COAST
L1, Regatta Corporate Building,
2 Innovation Parkway,
Birtinya Q 4575

Locked Bag 5010
Caloundra DC Q 4551

Sunshine Coast Office

Practice Areas

  • Wills, Estates, Planning + Structuring
  • Workplace
  • Litigation + Dispute Resolution
  • Commercial + Property
  • Construction
  • Intellectual Property
  • Privacy & Disclaimer
  • Terms of Use

Site Footer

CG Law (Trading) Pty Ltd ACN 143 426 028 t/a Clifford Gouldson Lawyers ABN 89 143 426 028 Liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation..

Copyright © 2022 Clifford Gouldson Lawyers · Privacy & Disclaimer · Terms of Use · Marketing by John Gray Marketing · Site by Kingfisher