![]() Without proof of an effective assignment, Clydesdale and not the Claimant remained the only party with title and the right to possession pursuant to the legal charge, despite the Claimant being the registered proprietor.On the pleadings, the claim had been brought by the Claimant’s as assignee only and not as the registered proprietor of the legal charge.Should the Claimant still be entitled to possession? The Defendants argued that the Claimant should not be. The issues being dealt with under this case number were, essentially, what the implications were of the Appeal Judge’s conclusions in his earlier judgment. The Appeal Judge considered that the Trial Judge had failed to have due regard to the evidence that was not before the court, and proceeding and finding for the Claimant on the basis of a redacted deed of assignment was obviously flawed. One of the issues was that the redacted deed of assignment suggested that there had been a direct transfer from Clydesdale Bank to the Claimant when correspondence in evidence suggested a chain of assignment between the Bank and the Claimant involving other companies in the group. Without the court considering these crucial documents (that plainly were in existance) the Judge’s conclusion on the evidence before him was unsafe. Mr Justice Marcus Smith, in an appeal judgment reported at EWHC 104 (Ch), held that the Judge had been wrong to admit into evidence the redacted deed of assignment rather than requesting disclosure of the unredacted deed and the sale and purchase agreement. He therefore granted possession on that basis, relying upon the redacted deed of assignment. The Trial Judge accepted into evidence a redacted version of the charge deed, and held that he was satisfied on the basis of the evidence before him that the debt and charge had been assigned to the Claimant by the deed of assignment. The Defendants however, despite being in possession of a redacted deed of assignment that referred to the sale and purchase agreement, did not make any application for specific disclosure but took the point at trial that the Claimant could not prove its case on the evidence before the court. The Claimant had begun possession proceedings using a standard form claim form and particulars of claim and had made a claim for the debt outstanding as well as for possession of the property on the basis of the legal charge.įor some reason (possibly because they could not be located), the Claimant did not disclose the Deed of Assignment or the sale and purchase agreement between itself and Clydesdale before trial. The Claimant was registered as the legal owner of the charge at the Land Registry. The Bank purported to assign the debt and the benefit of its legal charge to the group of companies of which the Claimant formed part. The Defendants (the Emanuals) were the owners of a property in Cornwall that was mortgaged to the Clydesdale Bank. In a possession and money claim brought by the registered assignee of a legal charge, the Appeal Judge found that the Claimant was entitled to possession as the registered title holder of a legal charge, despite his allowing the Defendant’s appeal and holding that the Claimant had not proved that a valid assignment of the debt had occurred at trial. The board shall make the redacted record available to the requester for inspection or copying 10 business days after sending the redacted record to the applicant or licensee for review unless the board receives a petition from the applicant or licensee under subsection 4.Updates Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Emanuel EWHC 563 (Ch) ![]() If the applicant or licensee so requests, the board shall send a copy of the redacted record to the applicant or licensee for review. The applicant or licensee has 10 business days from the date the board sends the notice to request the opportunity to review the redacted record. The acknowledgment to the requester must include a description of the review process provided to the applicant or licensee pursuant to this section, including the fact that all or part of the record may be withheld if the board finds that disclosure of all or part of the redacted record creates a potential risk to the applicant's or licensee's personal safety or the personal safety of any 3rd party. When the board acknowledges a request to inspect or copy an applicant's or a licensee's record as required by Title 1, section 408‑A, subsection 3, the board shall send a notice to the applicant or licensee at the applicant's or licensee's last address on file with the board explaining that the request has been made and that the applicant or licensee may review the redacted record before it is made available for inspection or copying.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |