1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
The beneficiary of a charging order had standing to intervene in proceedings leading to the forfeiture of a lease even several years after the lease had been forfeit. It was an interest derived from the lessee’s interest and a proper basis. The creditors not being told of the forfeiture in this case should not lose … Continue reading Croydon Unique Ltd v Wright and Crombie, and Crombie Intervenors: CA 29 Jul 1999
Tenants obtained a charging order against their landlord, and, after his bankruptcy, incurred substantial costs defending their charge against other claimants. The trustee declined to allow payment of the costs. Held: The costs were properly payable under the Act. The charge operated also as an equitable charge, and such a charge would carry the costs … Continue reading Holder and Others v APC Supperstone and Others: ChD 24 Nov 1999
A person claiming to be ‘interested’ in property had to demonstrate either some proprietary interest or similar or that he was directly affected by a charging order. An unsecured creditor could not take priority over the liquidator in seeking to overturn a charging order predating the winding up. Citations: Times 02-Sep-1999 Statutes: Charging Orders Act … Continue reading Banque National De Paris Plc v Montman Ltd and others: ChD 2 Sep 1999
The defendant had made a mistake resulting in an equitable chargee not being given proper opportunity to object to the registration of a further charge with priority. The chargee sought compensation from the defendant registrar. Held: The registration of a charge is not to be defeated by a minor error – compensation payable. The 1925 … Continue reading Clark and Another v Chief Land Registrar and Another: ChD 2 Dec 1992
The claimant had obtained a charging order to secure a judgment debt, but took no steps to enforce it for more than twelve years. The chargee denied that it could any longer be enforced, and also that the order carried interest when interest had not been mentioned. Held: A charging order impliedly includes a charge … Continue reading Ezekiel v Orakpo: ChD 4 Nov 1994
The bank had obtained a judgement against the defendant, and took a charging order. Nothing happened for more than twelve years, and the defendant now argued that the order and debt was discharged. Held: The enforcement of the charging order by normal means is not barred by section 20(1), and unlike the position under a … Continue reading Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall and Another: CA 24 Oct 2008
A charging order was made in 1982 to secure pounds 20,000 under a judgment given in 1979. The judgment creditor did not seek to enforce the charging order until almost 12 years had elapsed since the making of the charging order. An order for possession was made so as to enforce the order. The debtor … Continue reading Ezekiel v Orakpo: CA 16 Sep 1996
The trustee in bankruptcy sought to have set aside a charging order made over the bankrupt’s property before the commencement of the insolvency.
Held: ‘The principle that property acquired from a debtor (in good faith and without notice of the . .
The builders had obtained a charging order for the costs awarded to them in extensive litigation, and a third party costs order but without the third party having opportunity to test the bill delivered. They had agreed to sell land to the defendant, . .
A caution gives a right to be notified of an application, but does not give any priority on registration. . .
The defendant was registered proprietor of two properties, but resisted orders for sale of them under charging orders, saying that he was not the beneficial owner of them. . .
Use of charging orders to enforce payment of costs orders. . .
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt. Held: The House equated the contempt to a breach of an injunction … Continue reading Scott v Scott: HL 5 May 1913
(Cayman Islands) The respondent worked for a bank. He disclosed a business interest, but that interest grew in importance to the point where he resigned in circumstances amounting to constructive dismissal. His home and business officers were raided and searched by the police. Nothing incriminating was found. He claimed damages saying the search warrrant had … Continue reading Gibbs and others v Rea: PC 29 Jan 1998
The pension scheme had been approved, but that approval later withdraw. HMRC issued assessment for the years in which it had been approved. The taxpayer argued that such assessments applied to the date with effect from which the approval is withdraw, HMRC contended that it was in the year in which withdrawal was notified. The … Continue reading John Mander Pension Trustees Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 29 Jul 2015
The former bankrupt resisted sale of his property by the trustee, saying that enforcement was barred by limitation. He and his wife bought the property in early 1988, and he was made bankrupt in October 1988. He was dischaged from bankruptcy in October 1991. In December 1990 the court answered an application for the sale … Continue reading Gotham v Doodes: CA 25 Jul 2006
Mr and Mrs Shaw had granted a second charge over their jointly-owned matrimonial home to secure the personal guarantee given by their daughter and by Mr Shaw in respect of a bank loan to a company (Avon). Their daughter and Mr Shaw were the shareholders and directors of Avon. Mrs Shaw had no involvement in … Continue reading Day v Shaw and Another: ChD 17 Jan 2014
Land-owner’s Possible Duty to Trespassers The plaintiff, a child had gone through a fence onto the railway line, and been badly injured. The Board knew of the broken fence, but argued that they owed no duty to a trespasser. Held: Whilst a land-owner owes no general duty of care to a trespasser, the creation by … Continue reading British Railways Board v Herrington: HL 16 Feb 1972
Inherent High Court power may restrain Publicity The claimant child’s mother was to be tried for the murder of his brother by poisoning with salt. It was feared that the publicity which would normally attend a trial, would be damaging to S, and an application was made for reporting restrictions to be applied to avoid … Continue reading In re S (a Child) (Identification: Restrictions on Publication): HL 28 Oct 2004
Each defendant challenged the way he had been treated on revocation of his parole licence, saying he should have been given the opportunity to make oral representations. Held: The prisoners’ appeals were allowed. Lord Bingham stated: ‘While an oral hearing is most obviously necessary to achieve a just decision in a case where facts are … Continue reading Regina v Parole Board ex parte Smith, Regina v Parole Board ex parte West (Conjoined Appeals): HL 27 Jan 2005
The claimants wished to claim that they were victims of a miscarriage of justice in the way the Council had dealt with care proceedings. They sought that the proceedings should be reported without the children being identified. Held: A judge must adopt the same ‘parallel analysis’ leading to the same ‘ultimate balancing test’, as described … Continue reading Norfolk County Council v Webster and others: FD 1 Nov 2006
Police Officers had been acquitted of misconduct in public office. They had stood by in a police station custody suite as a prisoner lay on the floor and died. Held: The trial took place before R -v- G which had overruled Caldwell. The standard of recklessness to be show was that laid down in Cunningham. … Continue reading Attorney General’s Reference (No 3 of 2003): CACD 7 Apr 2004
In the course of ancillary relief proceedings in a divorce, questions arose regarding company assets owned by the husband. The court was asked as to the power of the court to order the transfer of assets owned entirely in the company’s names. The judge had made such an order, finding evidence that the companies had … Continue reading Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and Others: SC 12 Jun 2013
Each claimant sought damages for a criminal assault for which the defendant was said to be responsible. Each claim was to be out of the six year limitation period. In the first claim, the proposed defendant had since won a substantial sum from the National Lottery. They complained that the Limitation Act gave the court … Continue reading A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council, Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs intervening; X and Y v London Borough of Wandsworth: CA 12 Apr 2006
An application was made in care proceedings for an order restricting publication of information about the family after the deaths of two siblings of the child subject to the application. The Sun and a local newspaper had already published stories which it was said were in breach of the order, and attempts were made to … Continue reading In re A (A Minor): FD 8 Jul 2011
The applicant appealed against a confiscation order made on the basis of evidence obtained for and given in a trial that he had profited from the importation of cannabis. He had not faced trial on an associated charge, but had been convicted of conspiracy on the importation of heroin. Held: The court need not rely … Continue reading Briggs-Price, Regina v: HL 29 Apr 2009
Wife in Occupation had Overriding Interest The wife had made a substantial financial contribution to the purchase price of the house which was registered only in her husband’s name, and charged to the bank. The bank sought possession. The wife resisted saying that she had an overriding interest. Held: Her equitable interest was not only … Continue reading Williams and Glyn’s Bank Ltd v Boland: HL 19 Jun 1980
The Court was asked whether the Government can lawfully act in a manner which is inconsistent with an order of a judge which is defective, without first applying for, and obtaining, the variation or setting aside of the order. The appellant had been . .
Proposed changes to the Legal Aid regulations were challenged as being invalid, for being discriminatory. If regulations are not authorised under statute, they will be invalid, even if they have been approved by resolutions of both Houses under the . .
The parties to the action had given cross undertakings to support the grant of an interim injunction. A third party subsequently applied to be joined, and now sought to take advantage of the cross undertakings to claim the losses incurred through . .