Victus Estates (2) Ltd & Ors v Munroe & Ors (Costs) [2022] EWHC 34 (Ch) (11 January 2022)

Victus Estates (2) Ltd & Ors v Munroe & Ors (Costs) [2022] EWHC 34 (Ch) (11 January 2022)

Shawbrook and OneSavings succeeded on appeal, overturning the county court's finding that the TR1s were shams and establishing their entitlement to charges over a half share in the properties. Costs orders reflect the altered degree of success and failure, with Ms Munroe and Ms Benjamin ordered to pay substantial proportions of Shawbrook's and OneSavings' costs, subject to detailed and summary assessment.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 34 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Victus Estates (2) Limited; Claimant/respondent: Victus Estates (3) Limited; Claimant/respondent: Deepak Raj Agrawal; Claimant/respondent: Simple To Finance Limited; Defendant/respondent: Monica Munroe; Third Party/appellant: Shawbrook Bank Limited; Claimant/respondent: Julietta Sonia Benjamin; Defendant/respondent: Victus Estates (1) Limited; Defendant/appellant: OneSavings Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeals / Post Appeal Costs Determination
Outcome
Appeal allowed; costs orders varied
Legal Topics
Costs, Subrogation, Rectification of Register, Sham Transactions, Beneficial Ownership
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Costs Subrogation Rectification of Register Sham Transactions Beneficial Ownership

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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victus Estates (2) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Victus Estates (3) Limited

Claimant/respondent

Deepak Raj Agrawal

Claimant/respondent

Simple To Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

Monica Munroe

Defendant/respondent

Shawbrook Bank Limited

Third Party/appellant

Julietta Sonia Benjamin

Claimant/respondent

Victus Estates (1) Limited

Defendant/respondent

OneSavings Bank PLC

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeals / Post Appeal Costs Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Entitlement to costs following appeal
  2. 2 Effect of sham allegations on property transfers
  3. 3 Subrogation rights of mortgagees

Ratio Decidendi

Shawbrook and OneSavings succeeded on appeal, overturning the county court's finding that the TR1s were shams and establishing their entitlement to charges over a half share in the properties. Costs orders reflect the altered degree of success and failure, with Ms Munroe and Ms Benjamin ordered to pay substantial proportions of Shawbrook's and OneSavings' costs, subject to detailed and summary assessment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; costs orders varied

Orders

  • Ms Munroe to pay 95% of Shawbrook's costs up to 8 October 2019, 65% thereafter (excluding order for sale costs)
  • Ms Benjamin to pay 95% of OneSavings' costs up to 28 November 2019, 65% thereafter