Brooke Homes (Bicester Limited) v Portfolio Property Partners Limited (In Administration) & Ors

Brooke Homes (Bicester Limited) v Portfolio Property Partners Limited (In Administration) & Ors

Desiman must account for a non-monetary benefit arising from the Spine Road extension, assessed at £2.4 million, as this was a benefit 'by and out of' the mortgaged property. No surcharge is justified for the £2 million price reduction, as Brooke cannot show Desiman failed to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. Liabilities under Facility C and D are properly secured. Costs and expenses claimed by Desiman are subject to account and assessment for reasonableness and scope.

Parties
Claimant: Brooke Homes (Bicester) Limited; First Defendant: Portfolio Property Partners Limited (In Administration); Second Defendant: P3 ECO (Bicester) Himley Limited (In Administration); Third Defendant: Desiman Limited; Fourth Defendant: Desiman 2 Limited; Fifth Defendant: CFJL Property Partners Limited (In Administration)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Applications for Equitable Account and Marshalling
Outcome
Order for further accounts and enquiries; surcharge of £2.4 million for Spine Road extension; directions for assessment of costs and expenses; no surcharge for £2 million price reduction; confirmation of secured liabilities under Facility C and D.
Legal Topics
Equitable Account, Doctrine of Marshalling, Mortgagee Duties, Priority of Securities, Costs Assessment
Equity Property Law Secured Transactions Equitable Account Doctrine of Marshalling Mortgagee Duties Priority of Securities Costs Assessment

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 3 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brooke Homes (Bicester) Limited

Claimant

Portfolio Property Partners Limited (In Administration)

First Defendant

P3 ECO (Bicester) Himley Limited (In Administration)

Second Defendant

Desiman Limited

Third Defendant

Desiman 2 Limited

Fourth Defendant

CFJL Property Partners Limited (In Administration)

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Judgment on Applications for Equitable Account and Marshalling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should Desiman account to Brooke for a sum greater than £40 million due to negotiations and terms of sale to Cala?
  2. 2 What liabilities were secured in favour of Desiman under Facility C and Facility D?
  3. 3 What costs and expenses are deductible from receipts and should the court direct assessment?

Ratio Decidendi

Desiman must account for a non-monetary benefit arising from the Spine Road extension, assessed at £2.4 million, as this was a benefit 'by and out of' the mortgaged property. No surcharge is justified for the £2 million price reduction, as Brooke cannot show Desiman failed to obtain the best price reasonably obtainable. Liabilities under Facility C and D are properly secured. Costs and expenses claimed by Desiman are subject to account and assessment for reasonableness and scope.

Court Disposition

Order for further accounts and enquiries; surcharge of £2.4 million for Spine Road extension; directions for assessment of costs and expenses; no surcharge for £2 million price reduction; confirmation of secured liabilities under Facility C and D.

Orders

  • Surcharge of £2.4 million in favour of Brooke Homes for Spine Road extension benefit.
  • Detailed chronological cash account to be prepared by Desiman for principal, interest, fees, and costs.