Brierley v Otuo & Ors [2022] EWHC 688 (Ch) (08 April 2022)

Brierley v Otuo & Ors [2022] EWHC 688 (Ch) (08 April 2022)

The 2012 claim charging orders must be discharged because the underlying debts have been paid by the settlement sum, and the consent order requires the sum to be applied first to the first defendant's sole debts. The application to vary the final charging order is refused as it serves no practical purpose given the remaining secured sums.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 688 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: David Raymond Brierley; Defendant/claimant: Frank Otuo; Defendant: Ruth Otuo; Defendant: Jason Adu-Gyamfi; Defendant: Jayana Thenuara; Defendant: Lisa-Jayne Brierley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Property Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Applications for Discharge and Variation of Charging Orders
Outcome
2012 claim charging orders discharged; application to vary final charging order refused.
Legal Topics
Charging Orders, Beneficial Ownership, Costs Orders, Appropriation of Payments, Order for Sale
Property Law Trusts Civil Procedure Charging Orders Beneficial Ownership Costs Orders Appropriation of Payments Order for Sale

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Raymond Brierley

Claimant

Frank Otuo

Defendant/claimant

Ruth Otuo

Defendant

Jason Adu-Gyamfi

Defendant

Jayana Thenuara

Defendant

Lisa-Jayne Brierley

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Property Trusts and Probate / Post Trial Applications for Discharge and Variation of Charging Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether 2012 claim charging orders should be discharged due to payment of underlying debts
  2. 2 Whether final charging order dated 17 February 2020 should be varied to reflect payments made by first defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The 2012 claim charging orders must be discharged because the underlying debts have been paid by the settlement sum, and the consent order requires the sum to be applied first to the first defendant's sole debts. The application to vary the final charging order is refused as it serves no practical purpose given the remaining secured sums.

Court Disposition

2012 claim charging orders discharged; application to vary final charging order refused.

Orders

  • 2012 claim charging orders to be discharged.
  • No variation to the final charging order dated 17 February 2020.