[2003] UKHL 17, 3 April 2003. Second defendant S retained first defendant (I) as main contractor for construction of a new factory. A was a labour-only subcontractor which supplied labour to I. I got into arrears with payments and A threatened to withdraw its labour. A claimed that S made an oral promise to A at a meeting between their representatives to pay any money owing if I did not pay. When A was unable to obtain payment from I, A sought to enforce S's promise to pay. S relied on lack of signed writing to support the guarantee required by Statute of Frauds 1677 s4. CA ([2001] EWCA Civ 1477, Abs64625) allowed appeal by S on the grounds that the oral guarantee was enforceable under s4 of the 1677 Act. A appealed to HL claiming that S was estopped from relying on s4. HL held that there was nothing in writing to show that A was the beneficiary of an effective guarantee. To permit an estoppel to avoid the application of the statute to a guarantee would be inconsistent with the provisions of the 1677 Statute. To admit an estoppel would repeal the statute and would frustrate the continued operation of s4. Appeal dismissed. View judgment at www.parliament.the-stationary-office.co.uk (see also Abs666761).