Anfield (UK) Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc & Ors

The Bank is entitled to be subrogated to the Halifax Charge because it advanced funds on the expectation of obtaining a first legal charge but failed to do so solely due to non-registration. The enrichment of intermediate lenders is unjust, and the Bank's negligence in failing to register does not preclude subrogation.

Parties: Claimant/appellant: Anfield (UK) Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Bank of Scotland PLC; Second Defendant: Shafqat Ahmed Siddiqui; Third Defendant: London Scottish Finance Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 24 September 2010
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Subrogation, Priority of Charges, Unjust Enrichment, Land Registration

Equity Land Law Restitution Subrogation Priority of Charges Unjust Enrichment Land Registration

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 15 Party arguments 2

Parties

Anfield (UK) Limited

Claimant/appellant

Bank of Scotland PLC

First Defendant/respondent

Shafqat Ahmed Siddiqui

Second Defendant

London Scottish Finance Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Central London County Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether a lender who fails to register a legal charge is entitled to subrogation to a prior charge discharged with its advance, thereby gaining priority over intermediate lenders.
2 Whether the enrichment of intermediate secured lenders is unjust where the lender failed to register its charge.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

The Bank of Scotland PLC is entitled to be subrogated to the Halifax Charge to the extent of the moneys advanced to discharge it.