Rose & Ors v Creativityetc Ltd & Ors

Rose & Ors v Creativityetc Ltd & Ors

The Claimants have not made an unconditional offer to redeem, nor provided security or payment into court. Their prospects of success at trial are marginal. While there is a serious question to be tried regarding the right of redemption and the effect of the Defendants' alleged breaches, the balance of convenience does not favour a full interim injunction. However, a short extension of the injunction is granted to allow the Claimants a final opportunity to raise funds.

Parties
Claimant: David Rose; Claimant: David Philip Waxman; Claimant: Palador Property Investments Limited; Defendant: Creativityetc Limited; Defendant (as Joint Law of Property Act Receiver): Andrew Knowles; Defendant (as Joint Law of Property Act Receiver): Paul Greenhalgh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 October 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil (property/mortgage) / Interim Application for Injunction
Outcome
Interim injunction granted for a limited period
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Equity of Redemption, Interim Injunctions, Variation of Tomlin Orders, Receivership, Power of Sale
Property Law Equity Contract Law Mortgage Enforcement Equity of Redemption Interim Injunctions Variation of Tomlin Orders Receivership +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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Rose

Claimant

David Philip Waxman

Claimant

Palador Property Investments Limited

Claimant

Creativityetc Limited

Defendant

Andrew Knowles

Defendant (as Joint Law of Property Act Receiver)

Paul Greenhalgh

Defendant (as Joint Law of Property Act Receiver)

Procedural Posture

Civil (property/mortgage) / Interim Application for Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Claimants are entitled to an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from exercising the power of sale over the Stockport Properties
  2. 2 Whether the Defendants breached obligations under the Deed of Settlement and its variation
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants' right of redemption subsists after the longstop date and alleged breaches

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants have not made an unconditional offer to redeem, nor provided security or payment into court. Their prospects of success at trial are marginal. While there is a serious question to be tried regarding the right of redemption and the effect of the Defendants' alleged breaches, the balance of convenience does not favour a full interim injunction. However, a short extension of the injunction is granted to allow the Claimants a final opportunity to raise funds.

Court Disposition

Interim injunction granted for a limited period

Orders

  • The Defendants are restrained from selling the Stockport Properties for 28 days, expiring at 4.00 pm on Monday 23 November.
  • Defendants to give Claimants no less than seven days’ written notice of intention to sell, with details of the purchase price (subject to further submissions).