Amari Lifestyle Ltd (t/a Amari Super Cars) v Warnes & Ors

Amari Lifestyle Ltd (t/a Amari Super Cars) v Warnes & Ors

The CH1 and Legal Mortgage created valid equitable security interests in favour of the Trustees, which take priority over the Claimant’s charging order. The Trustees are unlikely to waive their security, so an order for sale would not benefit the Claimant. The court has no jurisdiction to prevent the Trustees from enforcing their security. Accordingly, the claim for an order for sale is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Amari Lifestyle Limited t/a Amari Super Cars; First Defendant: Matthew Giles Warnes; Second Defendant: Charles William Anthony Warnes; Third Defendant: Michael John Bulcock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Equitable Charge, Equitable Mortgage, Order for Sale, Discretionary Trusts, Priority of Charges
Trusts Property Civil Procedure Equitable Charge Equitable Mortgage Order for Sale Discretionary Trusts Priority of Charges

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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 17
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Amari Lifestyle Limited t/a Amari Super Cars

Claimant

Matthew Giles Warnes

First Defendant

Charles William Anthony Warnes

Second Defendant

Michael John Bulcock

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether CH1 created a valid equitable charge over Matthew Warnes’ interest in the Property
  2. 2 Whether the Legal Mortgage created a valid equitable mortgage over the Property
  3. 3 Whether Trustees would enforce their security if an order for sale was made

Ratio Decidendi

The CH1 and Legal Mortgage created valid equitable security interests in favour of the Trustees, which take priority over the Claimant’s charging order. The Trustees are unlikely to waive their security, so an order for sale would not benefit the Claimant. The court has no jurisdiction to prevent the Trustees from enforcing their security. Accordingly, the claim for an order for sale is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed