- Cited — Gregor Fisken Ltd v Carl (Rev 1) 2021-05-28
“…nciple that “factual matrix” material is admissible to clarify the meaning of a contract, but not to contradict it (Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62, [2004] 1 AC 919 at [49], Arnold v Britton [2015] UKSC 36, [201] AC 1619 at [17]). In my judgment, once account is taken of the well-established signature principle, the identi…”
- Cited — Taylor v Rhino Overseas Inc. 2020-03-10
“…fically identified as the party in the document, oral or extrinsic evidence is not admissible to show that others were the parties (Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919 at [49], Lord Hobhouse, and at [178] Lord Phillips). If FNCH (or Warburg Pincus International) is to be treated as a party to the Side Letter, that can only be…”
- Cited — Aspen Underwriting Ltd & Ors v Credit Europe Bank NV 2018-11-21
“…course to parol evidence. We were referred to passages from authorities emanating from very different contexts, namely: Shogun Finance v Hudson [2003] UKHL 62; [2004] 1 AC 919, esp., at [49], [153], [154] and [161]; Homburg Houtimport BV v Agrosin Ltd (The Starsin) [2003] UKHL 12; [2004] 1 AC 715, at…”
- Considered — P&P Property Ltd v Owen White & Catlin LLP 2018-05-15
“…eated on an objective analysis of the words used as one with the person he purported to be as identified in the contract itself. In Shogun Finance Ltd v Hudson [2004] 1 AC 919 Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough (and the majority in the House of Lords) considered that the construction of the written document admitted of only one possible co…”