Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus Plc: ChD 19 Jul 2012

On the sale of the claimant’s property, the solicitors received agreement by the defendant bank to the release of their charge over the property for a certainsum, being less than the loan outstanding. In the course of discharging the loan, a bank employee ineffectively simply changed the name on the charge. They made further a loan, but the secuity was ineffective. The bank claimed in just enrichment.
Held: As regards the totality of the purchase price of Great Oak Court, it was not discharged by the use of monies belonging to the Bank. This both eliminates the claim that Great Oak Court is pro tanto held on trust for the Bank and destroys the traditional route to subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien.

David Donaldson QC
[2012] EWHC 1991 (Ch)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedBanque 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 . .
CitedBuhr v Barclays Bank plc CA 26-Jan-2001
The bank took a second charge over property, but failed to get it registered. The chargors fell into debt and bankruptcy, and the property was sold. The proceeds were used to discharge the first charge, and then repay unsecured creditors. The bank . .

Cited by:
Appeal fromMenelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd CA 19-Jun-2013
The Court was asked questions about the law of unjust enrichment, and one of the remedies which may be granted to reverse the effect of unjust enrichment, namely subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien. The bank had released its charges over property . .
At ChDMenelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd CA 4-Jul-2013
The court set out answers to consequential questions raised by their judgment, and the form of declaration required. . .
At First InstanceBank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Land, Equity

Updated: 15 November 2021; Ref: scu.512281