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 marshalling did appear to apply as between the bank and M. The bank had been able resort to two securities in support of its lending to the partnership: first the agricultural charge over partnership assets (including the dog), and secondly third party legal charges over the farms.
Judges:
Norris J
Citations:
[2016] EWHC 2650 (Ch), [2017] Ch 422, [2017] BPIR 164, [2017] 3 WLR 198, [2017] WLR(D) 157
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In Re Ritson, Ritson v Ritson CA 1899
The joint debts of a partnership are payable out of the joint assets if sufficient even though secured on the separate property of one partner.
Chitty LJ said of a deceased partner that his ‘interest in the joint assets [of the partnership] . .
Cited – In Re Ritson ChD 1898
. .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Highbury Pension Fund Management Company and Another v Zirfin Investments Management Ltd and Others CA 3-Oct-2013
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Equity, Insolvency, Banking
Updated: 07 December 2022; Ref: scu.570475