Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville [2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch) (31 July 2013)

Pickenham Romford Ltd v Deville [2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch) (31 July 2013)

Mr Deville had no contractual, equitable, or subrogation rights to Lloyds' security over the Site; the refinancing extinguished Lloyds' security, BoS's security had priority, and the unilateral notices registered by Mr Deville were invalid. No trust or servicing agreement existed. The BoS PRL Debenture was valid and not materially altered. Summary judgment was appropriate as Mr Deville's defence had no real prospect of success.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2330 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pickenham Romford Ltd (in administration); Defendant: Alan Charles Deville
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the claimant
Legal Topics
Priority of Security Interests, Subrogation, Trusts, Summary Judgment, Release of Security, Equitable Charges
Property Law Insolvency Law Banking Law Priority of Security Interests Subrogation Trusts Summary Judgment Release of Security +1 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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pickenham Romford Ltd (in administration)

Claimant

Alan Charles Deville

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Validity of BoS PRL Debenture
  2. 2 Priority of security interests between BoS and Mr Deville
  3. 3 Existence of subrogation rights

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Deville had no contractual, equitable, or subrogation rights to Lloyds' security over the Site; the refinancing extinguished Lloyds' security, BoS's security had priority, and the unilateral notices registered by Mr Deville were invalid. No trust or servicing agreement existed. The BoS PRL Debenture was valid and not materially altered. Summary judgment was appropriate as Mr Deville's defence had no real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the claimant

Orders

  • Declaration that Mr Deville has no interest in the Site or its sale proceeds
  • Declaration that BoS's security has priority over any rights claimed by Mr Deville