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 had been based upon an assertion that the charges under which the respondent assrted title had been altered after execution, and invalidated.
Held: The notices were vacated. The amendments did not prejudice the claimant and did not therefore render the charges void, and ‘it is abundantly clear that there is simply no scope for Mr Deville to contend that it was agreed between him and Lloyds that he should be subrogated to Lloyds’ rights under the Lloyds PRL Debenture and Lloyds Charge. There is equally no scope for him to maintain, in the teeth of the documentation between PRL and BoS and the steps taken to give effect to what was agreed, not least the steps taken to release those two securities, to all of which he was fully privy, that in some way he can assert either that those two securities remained in full force and effect or that he enjoys rights of security over the assets of PRL on the terms of one or other of those two securities, let alone that he enjoys such rights in priority to BoS.’

Sir William Blackburne
[2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch)
England and Wales
CitedPigot’s Case 1614
A written contact may be avoided if somebody makes a material alteration to it after it has been signed and without his consent. . .
CitedRaiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich A G v Crossseas Shipping Ltd and Others CA 2000
The claimant creditor bank made changes to the guarantee executed by the guarantee without its approval and after it had been signed and duly executed, by inserting the details of a service agent.
Held: The insertion did not work to alter the . .
CitedWragg and Another v Partco Group Ltd UGC Ltd CA 1-May-2002
A claim was made against directors of a company involved in a takeover, for failure to make proper disclosure. The case involved also other issues. The defendants appealed against a refusal to strike out the claim.
Held: The rules made . .
CitedCelador Productions Ltd v Melville ChD 21-Oct-2004
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no . .
CitedCotton (T/A Allmat Enterprises) v Rickard Metals Inc QBD 21-Apr-2008
Eady J set out principles applying on applications for summary judgment: ‘the court needs to be satisfied that the relevant party’s case (in this instance that of Mr Cotton) is bound to fail on the material at present available and, secondly, that . .
See AlsoDaniels and others v Deville and others ChD 25-Jul-2008
The parties had entered into a joint venture which proved unsuccessful. The court was now asked to interpret a deed of dissolution if the agreement.
Held: Lindsay J determined the nature of the Joint Venture, the interests of the corporate . .
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 . .
CitedCheltenham and Gloucester Plc v Appleyard and Another CA 15-Mar-2004
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, . .
CitedAnfield (UK) Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc and Others ChD 24-Sep-2010
The court was asked as to the remedy of subrogation as it affects the priority of charges. . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Registered Land

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.514972