Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Judgement was given in the case of Day v Tiuta International Ltd and others:  All ER (D) 06 (Oct);  EWCA Civ 1246
The judge struck out the claimant's claim pleading set-off of his claim against the first defendant's (TIL) charge and entered summary judgment on TIL's counterclaims on the basis of subrogation of an earlier charge. The claimant appealed. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, in dismissing the appeal, held that the judge had been entitled to approach the application for summary judgment on TIL's two alternate hypotheses. Further, the claimant's argumentthat TIL had not relied expressly on the earlier charge when appointing receivers over his property provided no defence and there were no equitable defences available to the claimant to defeat TIL's claim to be subrogated.
The claimant acquired the freehold of a substantial residential property and land. He subsequently borrowed funds in order to refinance the property (the SC loan) secured by a mortgage and charge (the SC charge). The claimant then entered into a loan facility agreement with the first defendant company (TIL) to enable him to refinance his existing borrowings in respect of the property and to redevelop the property (the TIL loan). He executed a charge in favour of TIL (the TIL charge) and received the first tranche of funds under the TIL loan, which was used to repay the sums due under the SC loan and SC charge, before he received further sums from TIL. TIL was placed in administration and the claimant was unable to continue with the development of the property because no further funds were released.
The claimant failed to repay the TIL loan and TIL appointed joint receivers of the property (the receivers). He issued proceedings against TIL and the second defendant administrators (the administrators), asserting an unliquidated claim for damages and contending that he could set that claim off
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234