Lewison LJ discussed the operation of the principle of marshalling: ‘One consequence of the application of the principle is that if the first mortgagee with more than one security satisfies his debt out of the property over which the second mortgagee has his only security, the second mortgagee is entitled to stand pro tanto in the place of the first mortgagee in relation to the property over which the second mortgagee has no legal security . . It is in this sense that we can say that the second mortgagee is in effect subrogated to the rights of the first mortgagee.’ and ‘the way in which the original principle in its classic form is framed fastens on the conduct and conscience of the doubly secured creditor. It is the fact that he has the choice which fund to resort to and the power at law to disappoint the singly secured creditor which brings the equity into play.’
Riker, Lewison LJJ, Silber J
[2013] EWCA Civ 1283, [2014] 1 P andCR 13, [2014] 1 All ER 674, [2014] 1 BCLC 118, [2014] 1 CH 359, [2014] 2 WLR 1129
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – McLean and Another v Trustees of The Bankruptcy Estate of Dent and Others ChD 26-Oct-2016
Marshalling your Dogs Equitably
Application by the joint administrators of a partnership affording the opportunity to consider the application of the equitable doctrines of marshalling and subrogation in relation to a fixed charge over a dog.
Held: The equitable principle of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Highbury Pension Fund Management Company and Another v Zirfin Investments Ltd and Others ChD 14-Feb-2013
The court was asked: ‘a) Does the doctrine of marshalling permit the marshalling of securities held over property that does not belong to the common debtor? In particular, is a creditor of a guarantor entitled to marshal (or be subrogated to) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 September 2021; Ref: scu.517451