Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 2264 (Ch) (12 July 2012)

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors [2012] EWHC 2264 (Ch) (12 July 2012)

Rectification was refused because there was no objectively manifested common continuing intention to create a new or continuing charge over the individuals' properties to secure the company's indebtedness. The parties mistakenly assumed the existing security sufficed, but did not agree to grant further security. The error was a mistaken assumption, not a failure to record a different agreement.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 2264 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Lloyds TSB Bank PLC; First Defendant: Crowborough Properties Limited; Second Defendant: Sanjiv Kaushal; Third Defendant: Deepak Kaushal; Fourth Defendant: Mark Stubples; Fifth Defendant: Robert Baldwin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Rectification Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim for rectification dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification of Contract, Mistake in Contract Drafting, Security Interests, Personal Guarantees
Equity Contract Law Rectification of Contract Mistake in Contract Drafting Security Interests Personal Guarantees

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

Claimant

Crowborough Properties Limited

First Defendant

Sanjiv Kaushal

Second Defendant

Deepak Kaushal

Third Defendant

Mark Stubples

Fourth Defendant

Robert Baldwin

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Rectification Claim (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tomlin order should be rectified to reflect an alleged common intention regarding security over properties after release of personal guarantees
  2. 2 Whether a mistaken assumption as to the effect of the order justifies rectification

Ratio Decidendi

Rectification was refused because there was no objectively manifested common continuing intention to create a new or continuing charge over the individuals' properties to secure the company's indebtedness. The parties mistakenly assumed the existing security sufficed, but did not agree to grant further security. The error was a mistaken assumption, not a failure to record a different agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim for rectification dismissed

Orders

  • Rectification of the Tomlin order refused
  • No amendment to the security provisions