The claimant sought the discharge of his property from a charge in favour of the respondent. The respondent now appealed against the setting aside of the charge as a sham, saying that it had been entered into by the claimant as a ruse to defeat his creditors, and that he should not be allowed to take advantage of his own unlawful acts.
Held: The appeal failed: ‘Mr Jackson is not entitled to any remedy under the charge because no money is due under it. It is not and never can be security for any debt. Once that is established, Mr Vickers is entitled as owner of the property to have the entries relating to the charge removed from the register. Otherwise, as the judge said, his present creditors would be at least misled and possibly adversely affected by the presence on the register of entries relating to a charge which in reality secures nothing.’
Judges:
Maurice Kay, Carnwath, Lloyd LJJ
Citations:
[2011] EWCA Civ 725, [2011] 34 EG 104
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Insolvency, Contract
Updated: 15 September 2022; Ref: scu.441234