The case Yeung v Jeckz Investment Ltd and others [2024] EWCA Civ 1413 is a judgment by the Court of Appeal addressing the enforceability of personal guarantees and the defence of undue influence. The appellant, a company director who guaranteed loans of £700,000 for property development, attempted to challenge a summary judgment enforcing the guarantees. Allegations of undue influence were raised belatedly and in separate proceedings, but the court dismissed the appeal, finding the claims implausible, unsupported by evidence, and weakened by prior admissions and procedural delays.

This case is a pivotal reaffirmation of the principles under CPR Part 24 for summary judgments, as clarified in Swain v Hillman [2001] 1 All ER 91, which requires defences to demonstrate realistic prospects of success. It applies the rigorous standards for undue influence set out in Royal Bank of Scotland v Etridge (No 2) [2001] UKHL 44 and highlights the challenges of amending pleadings post-admissions, as discussed in ED&F Man Liquid Products Ltd v Patel [2003] EWCA Civ 472.

The judgment underscores the need for procedural discipline and robust evidential bases in contract law disputes. By emphasising the significance of timely, substantiated defences, it serves as critical guidance for commercial litigation, ensuring the integrity and efficiency of summary judgment mechanisms. Mr. Sandip Patel KC (instructed by Lex-Avoca Solicitors) for the Respondents.