Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors

Serious Organised Crime Agency v Szepietowski & Ors

There is nothing in the Settlement Deed or Consent Order which either explicitly or implicitly prevents SOCA from relying on the principle of marshalling in relation to Ashford House. The doctrine applies because Mrs Szepietowski owed debts to both SOCA and the Bank, the Bank had access to multiple securities, and SOCA was confined to one. SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank’s second charge over Ashford House for the shortfall left unsatisfied after the sale of the Claygate Properties.

Parties
Claimant: The Serious Organised Crime Agency; First Defendant: Susan Ann Szepietowski; Second Defendant: National Westminster Bank PLC; Third Defendant: John Szepietowski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 October 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
SOCA’s claim succeeds; SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank’s second charge over Ashford House as security for the shortfall.
Legal Topics
Marshalling, Mortgage Charges, Settlement Agreements, Subrogation
Property Law Equity Civil Procedure Marshalling Mortgage Charges Settlement Agreements Subrogation

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 13
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Serious Organised Crime Agency

Claimant

Susan Ann Szepietowski

First Defendant

National Westminster Bank PLC

Second Defendant

John Szepietowski

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SOCA is entitled to invoke the equitable doctrine of marshalling in relation to first charges held by National Westminster Bank PLC over the Claygate Properties and a second charge over Ashford House.
  2. 2 Whether the Settlement Deed and Consent Order preclude SOCA from relying on marshalling in relation to Ashford House.

Ratio Decidendi

There is nothing in the Settlement Deed or Consent Order which either explicitly or implicitly prevents SOCA from relying on the principle of marshalling in relation to Ashford House. The doctrine applies because Mrs Szepietowski owed debts to both SOCA and the Bank, the Bank had access to multiple securities, and SOCA was confined to one. SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank’s second charge over Ashford House for the shortfall left unsatisfied after the sale of the Claygate Properties.

Court Disposition

SOCA’s claim succeeds; SOCA is entitled to be subrogated to the Bank’s second charge over Ashford House as security for the shortfall.

Orders

  • SOCA to be subrogated to the Bank’s second charge over Ashford House for the unsatisfied balance following the sale of the Claygate Properties.
  • Parties to agree on the appropriate form of order; if difficulties arise, the court will address them upon handing down the judgment.