Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors

Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Crowborough Properties Ltd & Ors

There was no objectively manifested common continuing intention to grant a new charge over the individuals' properties to secure the company's indebtedness; the parties acted on a mistaken assumption rather than an incorrectly recorded agreement. Rectification is not available where the parties simply made a bad deal based on a shared mistaken assumption.

Parties
Claimant: Lloyds TSB Bank PLC; Defendant: Crowborough Properties Limited; Defendant: Sanjiv Kaushal; Defendant: Deepak Kaushal; Defendant: Mark Stupples; Defendant: Robert Baldwin
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Rectification, Charges, Guarantees, Tomlin Order, Mistake
Contract Law Property Law Rectification Charges Guarantees Tomlin Order Mistake

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lloyds TSB Bank PLC

Claimant

Crowborough Properties Limited

Defendant

Sanjiv Kaushal

Defendant

Deepak Kaushal

Defendant

Mark Stupples

Defendant

Robert Baldwin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tomlin order should be rectified to reflect the parties' true intentions regarding charges over properties securing company indebtedness
  2. 2 Whether a common continuing intention existed to grant a new charge over the individuals' properties

Ratio Decidendi

There was no objectively manifested common continuing intention to grant a new charge over the individuals' properties to secure the company's indebtedness; the parties acted on a mistaken assumption rather than an incorrectly recorded agreement. Rectification is not available where the parties simply made a bad deal based on a shared mistaken assumption.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed