Leon v Her Majesty's Attorney General

Leon v Her Majesty's Attorney General

Mr Leon was not entitled to the Lease as he had no proprietary interest; his liability under the Mortgage was unaffected by the disclaimer, and a vesting order in his favour would not be just compensation for the disclaimer. The Chief Master erred in law and principle by failing to analyse the effect of the disclaimer on Mr Leon and whether compensation was justified. The appeal is allowed and the vesting order is to be made in favour of Kensington.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Michael Leon; First Defendant: Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Second Defendant/appellant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the City of Westminster; Third Defendant/respondent: Kensington Mortgage Company Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Chief Master's orders set aside; vesting order to be made in favour of Kensington.
Legal Topics
Vesting Orders, Disclaimer of Lease, Bona Vacantia, Mortgage Liability, Restoration of Dissolved Company
Property Law Company Law Vesting Orders Disclaimer of Lease Bona Vacantia Mortgage Liability Restoration of Dissolved Company

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Leon

Claimant/respondent

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

First Defendant

The Mayor and Burgesses of the City of Westminster

Second Defendant/appellant

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited

Third Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Leon was entitled to a vesting order under section 1017 of the Companies Act 2006
  2. 2 Whether Mr Leon had a sufficient proprietary interest or liability to justify a vesting order
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to compensate Mr Leon by vesting the lease in him

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Leon was not entitled to the Lease as he had no proprietary interest; his liability under the Mortgage was unaffected by the disclaimer, and a vesting order in his favour would not be just compensation for the disclaimer. The Chief Master erred in law and principle by failing to analyse the effect of the disclaimer on Mr Leon and whether compensation was justified. The appeal is allowed and the vesting order is to be made in favour of Kensington.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Chief Master's orders set aside; vesting order to be made in favour of Kensington.

Orders

  • Chief Master's orders dated 16 January 2018 and 16 May 2018 set aside.
  • Vesting order to be made in favour of Kensington on terms that it is to account as mortgagee to the person next entitled in accordance with section 105 of the Law of Property Act 1925.