23-Mar-17
START DATE
END DATE
12-May-17
Mexico Infrastructure Finance LLC v. The Corporation of Hamilton
COURT:
LAW:
JUDGE(S):
CLAIMANT'S LAWYER:
DEFENDANT'S LAWYER:
The Court of Appeal for Bermuda
Civil Law Contract Law
Bell, JA; Clarke, JA; Baker, P
Lord Pannick QC, Mr. Ben Adamson (Conyers Dill & Pearman Limited)
Mr. Michael J. Beloff QC, Mr. Ronald H. Myers & Mr. Jonathan White (MDM Limited)
FACTS OF THE CASE:
MIF sued The Corporation of Hamilton to enforce a loan guarantee of $18 million for the failed Par-La-Ville hotel project. The Corporation of Hamilton initially accepted liability and entered a consent judgment but later sought to have it set aside, arguing that the guarantee was ultra vires (beyond its legal powers). The Supreme Court ruled that the Corporation lacked the legal authority to guarantee the loan, making the consent judgment unenforceable. The case was appealed by MIF.
SUMMARY:
Validity of Corporation's guarantee for loan abuse of process in challenging consent order
OUTCOMES:
Loan guarantee declared void; Consent Judgment set aside; Corporation not liable for repayment.
RULED IN FAVOUR OF:
The Corporation of Hamilton
PLAINTIFF/CLAIMANT
DEFENDANT:
DURATION (DAYS):
ISSUES:
RELEVANCE:
RULING:
RULING TYPE:
CASES CITED:
Join our pro membership and get all the details at your finger tips
Want to see full case details, including key arguments and claims? [Join Pro Membership] to unlock exclusive insights.
Discover the legal strategies and defenses used in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for full access.
How long did this legal battle last, and what key events happened? [Join Pro Membership] to find out.
Uncover the critical legal principles debated in this case. [Join Pro Membership] for in-depth analysis.
See why this case matters in Banking, Mortgages, and Financial Services. [Join Pro Membership] to explore its impact.
Find out the final judgment and its legal implications. [Join Pro Membership] to access the ruling.
Understand how this judicial ruling sets a precedent in law. [Join Pro Membership] for expert breakdowns.
See how past legal precedents influenced this case. [Join Pro Membership] to unlock the list.
Download Case Summary:
Explore:
EPHESIANS 6:16
PT Satria Tirtatama Energindo v. East Asia Company Limited and Bali Energy Limited
2016
RE: C (VARIATION OF ACCESS ORDER)
2015
In the Matter of IPOC Capital Partners Limited and others
2007
Hindsight law can make mistakes. Consider checking original case studies
Mexico Infrastructure Finance LLC v. The Corporation of Hamilton
MIF sued The Corporation of Hamilton to enforce a loan guarantee of $18 million for the failed Par-La-Ville hotel project. The Corporation of Hamilton initially accepted liability and entered a consent judgment but later sought to have it set aside, arguing that the guarantee was ultra vires (beyond its legal powers). The Supreme Court ruled that the Corporation lacked the legal authority to guarantee the loan, making the consent judgment unenforceable. The case was appealed by MIF.