SLF Associates Inc v (1) HSBC (UK) Bank Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 5 (Ch) (06 January 2021)

SLF Associates Inc v (1) HSBC (UK) Bank Plc & Ors [2021] EWHC 5 (Ch) (06 January 2021)

The Redemption Claim is struck out as it is inchoate, incoherent, insufficient, and constitutes an abuse of process as a collateral attack on the prior possession judgment. SLF has not demonstrated a valid interest in the equity of redemption capable of defeating the Bank's priority charge, nor provided evidence of an unconditional offer to redeem. The court's discretion under s.91(2) LPA does not extend to permitting a claim that seeks to delay enforcement of a final possession order based on unresolved disputes regarding the Option Agreement.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 5 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: SLF Associates Inc; First Defendant: HSBC (UK) Bank PLC; Second Defendant: Mrs Kathryn Ann Durnford; Third Defendant: The Official Receiver
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 January 2021
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Strike Out Application Hearing
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Redemption of Mortgage, Option Agreements, Abuse of Process, Equity of Redemption, Specific Performance, Bankruptcy, Priority of Charges
Property Law Equity Banking Law Insolvency Redemption of Mortgage Option Agreements Abuse of Process Equity of Redemption +3 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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SLF Associates Inc

Claimant

HSBC (UK) Bank PLC

First Defendant

Mrs Kathryn Ann Durnford

Second Defendant

The Official Receiver

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Strike Out Application Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SLF Associates Inc has a valid claim for redemption and sale under s.91(2) Law of Property Act 1925
  2. 2 Whether the Redemption Claim is inchoate, incoherent, or insufficient
  3. 3 Whether the Redemption Claim constitutes an abuse of process or collateral attack on a prior possession judgment

Ratio Decidendi

The Redemption Claim is struck out as it is inchoate, incoherent, insufficient, and constitutes an abuse of process as a collateral attack on the prior possession judgment. SLF has not demonstrated a valid interest in the equity of redemption capable of defeating the Bank's priority charge, nor provided evidence of an unconditional offer to redeem. The court's discretion under s.91(2) LPA does not extend to permitting a claim that seeks to delay enforcement of a final possession order based on unresolved disputes regarding the Option Agreement.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Redemption Claim struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)
  • Any unauthorised recordings or images of the hearing to be deleted by all parties