Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors [2010] EWHC 2570 (Ch) (15 October 2010)

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors [2010] EWHC 2570 (Ch) (15 October 2010)

There is nothing in the Settlement Deed or Consent Order that explicitly or implicitly precludes SOCA from relying on the doctrine of marshalling in relation to Ashford House. The requirements for marshalling are satisfied: Mrs Szepietowski owed debts to both the Bank and SOCA, the Bank had recourse to multiple securities, and SOCA only to one. The parties' expectation that the Claygate Properties would suffice to discharge the Bank's debt does not amount to a contractual exclusion of marshalling. Accordingly, SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank's second charge over Ashford House for the unsatisfied balance.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 2570 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Serious Organised Crime Agency; First Defendant: Susan Ann Szepietowski; Second Defendant: National Westminster Bank PLC; Third Defendant: John Szepietowski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial on Agreed Facts
Outcome
SOCA's claim for marshalling succeeds.
Legal Topics
Marshalling of Securities, Equitable Remedies, Mortgages, Subrogation, Settlement Agreements
Equity Property Law Marshalling of Securities Equitable Remedies Mortgages Subrogation Settlement Agreements

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant

Susan Ann Szepietowski

First Defendant

National Westminster Bank PLC

Second Defendant

John Szepietowski

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial on Agreed Facts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SOCA is entitled to invoke the equitable doctrine of marshalling in relation to Ashford House
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Deed or Consent Order precludes SOCA from relying on marshalling

Ratio Decidendi

There is nothing in the Settlement Deed or Consent Order that explicitly or implicitly precludes SOCA from relying on the doctrine of marshalling in relation to Ashford House. The requirements for marshalling are satisfied: Mrs Szepietowski owed debts to both the Bank and SOCA, the Bank had recourse to multiple securities, and SOCA only to one. The parties' expectation that the Claygate Properties would suffice to discharge the Bank's debt does not amount to a contractual exclusion of marshalling. Accordingly, SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank's second charge over Ashford House for the unsatisfied balance.

Court Disposition

SOCA's claim for marshalling succeeds.

Orders

  • SOCA is subrogated to the Bank's second charge over Ashford House as security for the shortfall left unsatisfied after the sale of the Claygate Properties.
  • The parties are to agree the form of order; if not, the court will determine it.