The Claim

In an earlier Judgment the Court at first instance ruled that Countrywide Surveyors Limited (the “Defendant”) was liable in deceit to Mortgage Express (the “Claimant”), in relation to 39 loans, further to property valuations produced by the Defendant.

Appointment of receivers in respect of a group entity takes “control” of that entity outside the group for tax purposes, but does this decision have more far reaching consequences?

The First Tier of the Tax Tribunal heard appeals against closure notices issued by HMRC denying claims for group relief by a group of companies, including a company over whose assets a fixed charge receiver (FCR) had been appointed (the Borrower).

The question of who is entitled to payment of compensation for PPI where a debtor has been discharged from his/her Protected Trust Deed (PTD) has given rise to conflicting judicial decisions in Scotland. In our previous article, we highlighted the uncertainty created following the decision of Sheriff Reid in the case of Donnelly v The Royal Bank of Scotland and the decision of Lord Jones in Dooneen Limited, t/a Mcginnes Associates and Douglas Davidson v David Mond.

The UK Commercial Court has dismissed the Claimant's application for a stay under Article 28 of the Judgments Regulation.

Litigation

Lender not obliged to advise borrower about onerous term

In Finch and another v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc and others,  the High Court considered whether a lender had a duty to advise a borrower about a clause in its loan agreement making it liable for the bank's hedging break costs if the borrower chose to repay a fixed rate loan early.

It is estimated that there were almost 40,000 Protected Trust Deeds (“PTD”) entered into between 2005 and 2010. Similar to an IVA, a PTD is a voluntary arrangement in which the debtor conveys his estate to an insolvency practitioner (“the Trustee”) to be held on trust for the benefit of creditors. A large number of those who enter into a PTD do so because of borrowing that they have incurred on credit cards.

The facts

The Commercial Court recently held that the Defendant, a former majority beneficial owner of the Claimant bank, had acted dishonestly and in breach of duties owed to the Claimant in causing the Claimant to advance monies in eight transactions which had not been repaid or recovered, to a borrower closely connected to the Defendant

Background

The Facts

On 31 July 2012, a bankruptcy order was made in respect of Mr Dean Jonathan D’Eye on the basis of a statutory demand dated 11 July 2011.

During their investigations, his trustees in bankruptcy discovered that Mr D’Eye had made a payment of £321,919 to his father on 24 January 2012 (the Payment) and, after the presentation of the bankruptcy petition on 28 May 2012, a significant portion of this money had then been used to purchase a flat (the Flat).

Key points

Lenders and proposed administrators should ensure that permission is in place where permission of prior charge holders is required for the grant of new security.

The facts