Parr v Tiuta International Ltd [2016] EWHC 2 (QB) (12 January 2016)

Parr v Tiuta International Ltd [2016] EWHC 2 (QB) (12 January 2016)

The contractual right to interest continued until the sale of the secured property because the lender was exercising its rights under the charge, and the wording of the loan agreement and charge supported this. The charging order should not be discharged due to the error in the sum, but should be varied to reflect the correct amount owed.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2 (QB)
Parties
Appellant and Defendant: Richard Parr; Respondent and Claimant: Tiuta International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Refusing to Discharge Charging Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of discharge; allowed to the extent of varying the charging order to the correct sum.
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Merger of Judgment and Contractual Rights, Interest on Judgment Debts, Variation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Banking and Finance Charging Orders Merger of Judgment and Contractual Rights Interest on Judgment Debts Variation of Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Parr

Appellant and Defendant

Tiuta International Limited

Respondent and Claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Refusing to Discharge Charging Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the charging order should be discharged or varied due to an error in the sum secured
  2. 2 Whether the contractual right to interest merged into the judgment debt
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to vary the charging order after delay

Ratio Decidendi

The contractual right to interest continued until the sale of the secured property because the lender was exercising its rights under the charge, and the wording of the loan agreement and charge supported this. The charging order should not be discharged due to the error in the sum, but should be varied to reflect the correct amount owed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of discharge; allowed to the extent of varying the charging order to the correct sum.

Orders

  • Charging order to be varied to secure the correct sum outstanding as at the date of sale of the secured property.