Leon v Her Majesty's Attorney General & Ors

Mr Leon did not have a proprietary or beneficial interest in the lease sufficient to entitle him to a vesting order under section 1017(2)(a), nor did his liabilities justify a vesting order as compensation under section 1017(3); therefore, the lease should vest in Kensington as mortgagee.

Parties: Appellant: Michael Leon; First Respondent: Her Majesty’s Attorney General; Second Respondent: The Mayor and Burgesses of the City of Westminster; Third Respondent: Kensington Mortgage Company Limited
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 22 November 2019
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Bona Vacantia, Vesting Orders, Dissolution of Companies, Mortgage Law, Equity of Redemption

Property Law Company Law Bona Vacantia Vesting Orders Dissolution of Companies Mortgage Law Equity of Redemption

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6

Parties

Michael Leon

Appellant

Her Majesty’s Attorney General

First Respondent

The Mayor and Burgesses of the City of Westminster

Second Respondent

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Second Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether Mr Leon was entitled to a vesting order of the lease under section 1017 of the Companies Act 2006
2 Whether Mr Leon had an interest in the disclaimed property or was entitled to compensation by vesting order under section 1017(3)

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Vesting order to Kensington Mortgage Company Limited as mortgagee on terms that it accounts as mortgagee to the person next entitled in accordance with section 105 of the Law of Property Act 1925