Cohen & Anor v TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2001] EWHC Ch 475 (30 November 2001)

Cohen & Anor v TSB Bank Plc & Ors [2001] EWHC Ch 475 (30 November 2001)

The receivers took reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for both 7 Newcourt Street and 28 Woronzow Road, and both properties were sold at or above their true market value at the relevant times. The selling agents owed no duty of care to the claimant as guarantor. Even if a duty existed, it was discharged. The exclusion clauses in the security documents would in any event exclude liability absent fraud, which was not established. The claimant suffered no compensable loss as the sales would not have discharged his full indebtedness and the IVA precluded further liability.

Citation
[2001] EWHC Ch 475
Parties
First Claimant: Ivor Laurence Cohen; Second Claimant: Josselyne Fortunee Cohen; First Defendant: TSB Bank PLC; Second Defendant: Smith & Williamson (a firm); Third Defendant: Winkworth (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Duties of Receivers, Sale at Undervalue, Duties of Selling Agents, Guarantor Liability, Exclusion Clauses, Market Value Determination
Equity Property Law Insolvency Duties of Receivers Sale at Undervalue Duties of Selling Agents Guarantor Liability Exclusion Clauses +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivor Laurence Cohen

First Claimant

Josselyne Fortunee Cohen

Second Claimant

TSB Bank PLC

First Defendant

Smith & Williamson (a firm)

Second Defendant

Winkworth (a firm)

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether receivers owed a duty of care to the guarantor to obtain proper price on sale of secured properties
  2. 2 Whether selling agents owed a duty of care to the guarantor
  3. 3 Whether properties were sold at undervalue

Ratio Decidendi

The receivers took reasonable care to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable for both 7 Newcourt Street and 28 Woronzow Road, and both properties were sold at or above their true market value at the relevant times. The selling agents owed no duty of care to the claimant as guarantor. Even if a duty existed, it was discharged. The exclusion clauses in the security documents would in any event exclude liability absent fraud, which was not established. The claimant suffered no compensable loss as the sales would not have discharged his full indebtedness and the IVA precluded further liability.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

  • All claims against the Second and Third Defendants dismissed
  • No damages or compensation awarded to the claimant