ARTICLE
23 October 2026

Show Some Consideration, Please

AO
A&O Shearman

Contributor

A&O Shearman was formed in 2024 via the merger of two historic firms, Allen & Overy and Shearman & Sterling. With nearly 4,000 lawyers globally, we are equally fluent in English law, U.S. law and the laws of the world’s most dynamic markets. This combination creates a new kind of law firm, one built to achieve unparalleled outcomes for our clients on their most complex, multijurisdictional matters – everywhere in the world. A firm that advises at the forefront of the forces changing the current of global business and that is unrivalled in its global strength. Our clients benefit from the collective experience of teams who work with many of the world’s most influential companies and institutions, and have a history of precedent-setting innovations. Together our lawyers advise more than a third of NYSE-listed businesses, a fifth of the NASDAQ and a notable proportion of the London Stock Exchange, the Euronext, Euronext Paris and the Tokyo and Hong Kong Stock Exchanges.
When a lender sought to enforce a security letter's jurisdiction clause to serve proceedings abroad, the High Court examined whether the letter constituted an enforceable contract. The case turned on a fundamental question of contract law: was there valid consideration to support the security arrangement?
United Kingdom Corporate/Commercial Law

It is rare for a contract to be found to lack consideration. However, in a recent jurisdiction challenge, the High Court held that there was no good arguable case that a security letter was supported by consideration.

Claim for the repayment of a loan

Denning lent USD 1 million to Arcem under a loan agreement, with repayment obligations guaranteed by Main. The loan agreement was governed by English law but did not contain a jurisdiction clause. Following non-repayment by the borrower of the loan, Denning served proceedings on Arcem and Main abroad. He relied on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in a security letter that referenced the loan agreement.

To serve abroad under the civil procedure rules, the court found that Denning had to show the security letter amounted to an enforceable contract. Arcem argued the security letter was not a binding contract and could not support Denning’s service.

The court held Denning did not have a good arguable case that the security letter was supported by consideration.

A lack of consideration

The court rejected Denning’s arguments for consideration as follows:

  • Denning argued that his decision not to sue Arcem for the outstanding loan amounted to valid consideration. The judge accepted that forbearance can be consideration but there must be a causal link between the borrower’s promise and the lender’s decision not to sue. A decision not to sue on its own (“bare forbearance”) does not amount to consideration. Denning’s evidence did not cover the topic of forbearance and therefore did not support his argument. In addition, Denning had not commenced proceedings before the security letter was sent, suggesting that the security letter may not have been the reason for the forbearance.
  • Denning further argued that a jurisdiction clause, comprising mutual promises to sue in England, could be consideration. The judge rejected this, stating that a dispute resolution clause cannot constitute consideration for a contract that otherwise lacks it.

Judgment: Denning v Arcem Resources

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More