- Merger of judgment and variation of charging order (Parr v Tiuta International)
- Practical implications
- How did the issues arise in the present case?
- Did the order merge the contractual right to interest with the judgment?
- Would the court vary the amount of the charging order?
- Court details
Dispute Resolution analysis: The wording of a loan agreement and the charge it secured, together with the circumstances that the charge holder was exercising the charge, meant that there was no merger of the contractual right to interest under the loan agreement with the judgment entered against the borrower on default under the loan agreement. Thus the loan agreement contractual interest provisions continued after judgment up until the point of sale of the charged property, not the (lower) rate of judgment debt interest. This meant that there was an amount still standing in favour of the charge holder when the property was sold and which could be secured by way of charging order over a second property. In relation to that charging order over the second property, the sum of the charging order could be varied notwithstanding the application to vary was made three years later, given that the original amount of the charging order had been entered incorrectly by the admitted mistake of the charge holder.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial