September 2019
27/9/19
KENSINGTON MORTGAGE COMPANY LTD v MALLON [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch)
Defendants transferred title to their home to a third party to hold as security until a loan made to them by the third party was repaid. The third party mortgaged the property to the claimant and defaulted. A possession order made by the trial judge in favour of the claimant was upheld on appeal. The court reviewed the principles on which rights may arise under a resulting or constructive trust or by proprietary estoppel [37]. The trial judge had been entitled to find that the owners had not sufficiently pleaded a claim to an interest under a trust. In any event, by s 26 Land Registration Act 2002 any overriding interest of the defendants as persons in actual occupation would not have affected the validity of the mortgage and no trust or proprietary estoppel would have arisen until the debt had been repaid. There was no mistake in the title register because the transfer to the third party had not been void or voidable.
24/9/19
OHPEN OPERATIONS UK LTD v INVESCO FUND MANAGERS LTD [2019] EWHC 2504 (TCC)
Comments on guideline hourly rates in costs assessment [14].
20/9/19
BANK OF BARODA v MANIAR [2019] EWHC 2463 (Comm)
After receiving payment under a scheme of arrangement in Ireland relating to the liabilities of the debtor company, the Bank could not sue guarantors for the company’s liabilities. Irish law experts agreed that acceptance of payment discharged the company’s liabilities. It was not open to the Bank to contend otherwise as it had not pleaded the point or challenged the agreed position taken by the experts.
13/9/19
NICOLL v PROMONTORIA (RAM 2) LTD [2019] EWHC 1410 (Ch)
It was not arguable that the effective date of an assignment had not been reached having regard to a notice from the assignor and the assignee stating that the assignment had taken effect [37]. It was none of the business of the debtor to challenge an assignment whose validity and effectiveness was not being challenged by either of the parties to it [41]. Over-enthusiastic and ill-thought out redactions such as made to the copy of the assignment on which the assignee relied were questionable [65].
3/9/19
PROMONTORIA (HENRICO) LTD v SAMRA [2019] EWHC 2327 (Ch)
In determining whether an effective assignment had taken place, the court is entitled to have regard to the totality of the evidence before it and is not limited to the assignment document. Having regard to the notice of assignment given by the assignor and the assignee and the fact that the authenticity of the copy of the assignment disclosed by the claimant had not been put in issue, the court was satisfied that the debt under a specific facility letter had been assigned. An allegation that the lender had given an assurance that the loan would be extended for a further ten years failed on the facts. The court reviewed the principles for assessing whether there had been an unfair relationship [25] but found that the relationship between the lender and borrower had not been unfair.