Urban Ventures Ltd v Thomas & ors

Urban Ventures Ltd v Thomas & ors

The facility letter dated 26 March 2009 and subsequent facility letters did not constitute new or further advances by Dunbar to TBAC. There was no repayment of the original advance, no new monies advanced, and no agreement to treat the transaction as a new advance. The documentation and conduct of the parties indicated only a restatement or minor variation of the existing loan. Therefore, statutory restrictions on tacking were not engaged and Dunbar retained priority as first chargee.

Parties
Appellant: Urban Ventures Limited; 1st Respondents: Simon Robert Thomas and Nicholas O’Reilly as Administrators of The Black Ant Company Limited (in administration) and Billsop Properties Limited (in administration); 2nd Respondent: Dunbar Assets PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Tacking of Charges, Priority of Mortgages, Further Advances, Land Registration, Facility Agreements
Property Law Banking Law Insolvency Law Tacking of Charges Priority of Mortgages Further Advances Land Registration Facility Agreements

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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Urban Ventures Limited

Appellant

Simon Robert Thomas and Nicholas O’Reilly as Administrators of The Black Ant Company Limited (in administration) and Billsop Properties Limited (in administration)

1st Respondents

Dunbar Assets PLC

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the facility letter dated 26 March 2009 and subsequent facility letters constituted new or further advances by Dunbar to TBAC for the purposes of statutory restrictions on tacking
  2. 2 Whether unpaid interest and fees capitalised in the facility letters constituted further advances

Ratio Decidendi

The facility letter dated 26 March 2009 and subsequent facility letters did not constitute new or further advances by Dunbar to TBAC. There was no repayment of the original advance, no new monies advanced, and no agreement to treat the transaction as a new advance. The documentation and conduct of the parties indicated only a restatement or minor variation of the existing loan. Therefore, statutory restrictions on tacking were not engaged and Dunbar retained priority as first chargee.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed