Priority, amending and releasing security

Real estate lawyers will often be involved in registering legal charges at HM Land Registry. In some cases, they will also simultaneously be involved in registering deeds of subordination, deeds of priority, intercreditor deeds or deeds of substitution. In most refinance transactions, real estate lawyers will deal with the release of existing security and the registration of that release or discharge at HM Land Registry.

Priority

Competing security interests arise when more than one creditor has taken security over the same asset(s). Determining the order of priority between those security interests decides the order in which each of the secured creditors can claim on the secured property in an enforcement or insolvency scenario.

The 'first in time' general rule

The basic starting point in relation to priority of security is that a creditor who is ‘first in time’ with a security interest in an asset takes priority over all subsequent security interests in that same asset. However, there are a number of exceptions to this rule:

  1. a legal security interest takes priority over an earlier equitable security interest in respect of the same asset if certain

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property News

Market value, distributions and notional transactions—key SDLT lessons from Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd v HMRC, the Court of Appeal considered the basis on which stamp duty land tax (SDLT) should be assessed and whether that resulted in SDLT being paid on the market value, the actual consideration paid, or on some other basis for a complex transaction within a corporate group. The taxpayer argued that the ‘Case 3’ exception under section 54(4) of the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) applied, which would result in SDLT being charged on the actual consideration. HMRC argued that the exception did not apply, which would result in SDLT being paid on the market value of the property. Alternatively, HMRC argued that if the exception did apply then the anti-avoidance provisions at section 75A FA 2003 applied, potentially resulting in an even higher SDLT charge. The Court of Appeal held that although the Case 3 exception applied, the anti-avoidance provision in FA 2003, s 75A also applied. This resulted in SDLT being assessed on an aggregate amount that was even higher than the property's market value (although HMRC did not seek to increase its assessment beyond market value). Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. As explained by Jon Stevens, partner, and Rory Clarke, solicitor, at DWF Law LLP, this decision deals with the interaction of a number of complex SDLT provisions and clarifies the SDLT provisions relating to transfers to connected companies and the SDLT anti-avoidance provisions, with implications for corporate structuring and tax planning.

View Property by content type :

Popular documents