Red River (UK) Ltd & Anor v Sheikh & Anor [2009] EWHC 431 (Ch) (09 March 2009)

Red River (UK) Ltd & Anor v Sheikh & Anor [2009] EWHC 431 (Ch) (09 March 2009)

The court refused to vary the undertakings or order release of the security because the Sheikhs' rights to security under the settlement agreement and consent order could not be overridden in favour of a speculative and partial payment, and it was not for the court to compel them to give up security for less than the amount due. The court also found the sums offered were uncertain and insufficient, and the jurisdiction to order removal of restrictions was not established.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 431 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Red River (UK) Limited; Claimant: Ismail Dogan; Defendant: Anal Sheikh; Defendant: Rabia Sheikh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Undertakings and Release of Security
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Land Registration, Security Interests, Undertakings, Variation of Consent Orders, Removal of Restrictions, Second Charges, Good Faith Obligations
Property Law Equity and Trusts Civil Procedure Land Registration Security Interests Undertakings Variation of Consent Orders Removal of Restrictions +2 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Red River (UK) Limited

Claimant

Ismail Dogan

Claimant

Anal Sheikh

Defendant

Rabia Sheikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Chancery Division Civil Claim / Interlocutory Application for Variation of Undertakings and Release of Security

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should vary undertakings to permit release of documents enabling removal of restrictions and transfer of shares before full payment to the Sheikhs
  2. 2 Whether the Sheikhs can be compelled to give up security for less than the amount due under the settlement agreement
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction to order removal of restrictions under the Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused to vary the undertakings or order release of the security because the Sheikhs' rights to security under the settlement agreement and consent order could not be overridden in favour of a speculative and partial payment, and it was not for the court to compel them to give up security for less than the amount due. The court also found the sums offered were uncertain and insufficient, and the jurisdiction to order removal of restrictions was not established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application to vary undertakings and release security refused