UBS AG v Rose Capital Ventures Ltd & Ors

UBS AG v Rose Capital Ventures Ltd & Ors

The defence, insofar as it relied on implied Braganza terms, FCA Handbook duties, wrongful appointment of receivers, delay/frustration, occupation rights, and subrogation defences, was bound to fail as a matter of law or was inadequately pleaded. The mortgage terms were clear, and no further fetters or duties could be implied. The only aspect of the defence capable of amendment was the estoppel plea relating to the third and fourth defendants.

Parties
Claimant: UBS AG; First Defendant: Rose Capital Ventures Limited; Second Defendant: Dr Vijay Mallya; Third Defendant: Mrs Lalitha Mallya; Fourth Defendant: Mr Sidartha Vijay Mallya
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/mortgage) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)
Outcome
Application to strike out allowed in substantial part; specified paragraphs of the amended defence struck out.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Strike Out Applications, Good Faith in Mortgage Contracts, Actual Occupation Rights, Implied Terms, Subrogation, Abuse of Process
Banking and Finance Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Enforcement Strike Out Applications Good Faith in Mortgage Contracts Actual Occupation Rights Implied Terms +2 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 5 Authorities cited 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

UBS AG

Claimant

Rose Capital Ventures Limited

First Defendant

Dr Vijay Mallya

Second Defendant

Mrs Lalitha Mallya

Third Defendant

Mr Sidartha Vijay Mallya

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/mortgage) / Interlocutory Application (strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant UBS is entitled to strike out parts of the amended defence relating to good faith, Braganza term, FCA Handbook duties, wrongful appointment of receivers, delay/frustration of refinancing, occupation rights, and subrogation.

Ratio Decidendi

The defence, insofar as it relied on implied Braganza terms, FCA Handbook duties, wrongful appointment of receivers, delay/frustration, occupation rights, and subrogation defences, was bound to fail as a matter of law or was inadequately pleaded. The mortgage terms were clear, and no further fetters or duties could be implied. The only aspect of the defence capable of amendment was the estoppel plea relating to the third and fourth defendants.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out allowed in substantial part; specified paragraphs of the amended defence struck out.

Orders

  • Paragraphs of the amended defence relating to issues 1 to 8, 10, and 11 are struck out.
  • Permission granted to amend paragraph 17c (issue 9) to cure the acknowledged defect.