The owners had purchased their property with a loan from the BBBS. A charge was then given to BCCI, which charge said no further charge could be registered without BCCI ‘s consent. The C and G agreed to lend a sum to refinance the entire borrowings, but on the day it was to be completed, provisional liquidators to BCCI were appointed, who refused to acknowledge the discharge of their charge, and the C and G charge could only have protection as an equitable charge. BCCI acknowledged that they had received the sums due, and so had BBBS.
Held: Even though the C and G had received some reduced security, they were entitled to be subrogated to the first chargees whose loan was repaid by their funds. Otherwise the Appleyards would be unjustly enriched to the extent that their property was burdened with a lesser security. Subrogation was a private remedy intended to avoid unjust enrichment.
Lord Justice Kennedy, Lord Phillips Of Worth Matravers, Mr Lord Justice Neuberger
Times 29-Mar-2004,  EWCA Civ 291, Gazette 01-Apr-2004,  13 EG 127,  13 EG 12
England and Wales
Cited – Halifax Plc v Omar CA 20-Feb-2002
The respondent occupied a flat as a tenant. The landlord had acquired it by means of a fraud on the claimant lender. The lender had been given an equitable charge over the property, and now claimed possession as subrogated to the original fraudulent . .
Cited – Banque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
Cited – Burston Finance Ltd v Spierway Ltd ChD 1974
The lender took a charge over a property held by a company which subsequently became void because it was not registered within the required period at Companies House.
Held: A voidable charge is a valid charge unless and until set aside: . .
Cited – Paul v Speirway Ltd (in liquidation) 1976
The plaintiff had made a loan to a company in which he had a joint interest in order to enable it to pay the price due under a contract for the purchase of development land. The company failed, and he now claimed to be a secured creditor by . .
Applied – Orakpo v Manson Investments Ltd HL 1977
Transactions were entered into under which loans were made to enable the borrower to acquire and develop certain properties were held to be unenforceable under the 1927 Act. The effect was to enrich the borrower, who had fallen into arrears of . .
Cited – Boscawen and Others v Bajwa and Others; Abbey National Plc v Boscawen and Others CA 10-Apr-1995
The defendant had charged his property to the Halifax. Abbey supplied funds to secure its discharge, but its own charge was not registered. It sought to take advantage of the Halifax’s charge which had still not been removed.
Held: A mortgagee . .
Cited – Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski and Others ChD 15-Oct-2010
The court was asked whether, as second mortgagee on the defendant’s properties, the claimant agency had the equitable power of marshalling of prior charges. The first chargee had charges over two properties, and sold the first, satisfying it debt, . .
Cited – Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville ChD 31-Jul-2013
The claimant company’s administrators sought an order to have vacated unilateral notices entered against land titles registered to the claimant. The court now gave its reasons for making the order as requested by way of summary relief. The notices . .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 May 2021; Ref: scu.194462