Alan Bennett and Crispin Jones successfully acted for Mr Dowling in his application to set aside a Statutory Demand served on him by Promontoria (Arrow) Limited ("Promontoria") in the sum of €6,338,675.93. The decision has wide reaching implications for creditors seeking to rely on guarantees.

Senior associate Lucy Gould reviews the recent case of Davis v Jackson [2017] EWHC 698 (Ch), in which the court determined the beneficial interests a separated (but not divorced) married couple each held in a property. The property was owned in joint names but occupied only by the wife, who had solely financed its purchase and the mortgage.

Background

When you are not the only lender to a company or group, it can be daunting trying to fairly balance the commercial needs of the other creditors and at the same time make sure you are protecting your own position. Below are Gateley’s top tips for dealing with intercreditor arrangements.

1. Get the terminology right

On 1 October 2017, the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims (Protocol) will come into force. It will apply to all debt claims where:

• the creditor is a business (including sole traders and public bodies)
• the debtor is an individual (including sole traders), and
• no other specialised Protocol applies.

Why is this new Protocol being introduced?

The express purpose of the new Protocol is to:

The recent Court of Appeal decision in Saw (SW) 2010 Ltd and another v Wilson and others (as joint administrators of Property Edge Lettings Ltd) is the first case to address the effect of automatic crystallisation of an earlier floating charge upon a later floating charge.

In Saw v Wilson, the Court of Appeal held that a second ranking floating charge would be valid and enforceable, even if at the time it was created there were no uncharged assets to which the floating charge could attach.

Facts of the case

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Single signature bank mandate binding on partnership

The High Court has recently considered whether a one signature bank mandate was sufficient to bind a partnership to various loan agreements.

This month we consider the court's refusal to imply an obligation into a loan agreement that a lender should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security; the court's view on the failure to heed alarm bells in relation to potential undue influence; and more cases and issues affecting the industry.

No implied term in a loan agreement that creditor should take steps in foreign proceedings to preserve security

The English Supreme Court has considered various new categories of creditor claims against a company with unlimited liability in administration where, unusually, there was enough money to pay all creditors and a surplus existed.

In proceedings commonly referred to as the Waterfall I litigation, the Supreme Court considered issues relating to the distribution of funds from the estate of Lehman Brothers International Europe (in administration) (LBIE), in circumstances where there was a surplus of assets amounting to approximately £8 billion.

This month we consider the court's view on the extent to which firms' activities in handling complaints are themselves subject to adjudication by the Financial Ombudsman Service; the exercise of the court's discretion in refusing an unopposed application to annul a bankruptcy order; and more cases and issues affecting the industry:

The High Court considers the remit of the FOS's jurisdiction