UK: Finance Litigation Briefing - April 2016

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

Offer to secure debt not unreasonably refused

The fact that a debtor's offer to secure or compound a debt constitutes as much as that debtor can afford does not render its rejection unreasonable.

This was the finding in Cooke v Dunbar Assets plc, in which Dunbar sought to enforce a personal guarantee against Cooke. The guarantee related to loans by Dunbar to Cooke's property development company which were called in.

Receivers were appointed over the company's land. £5 million of debt remained outstand to Dunbar which subsequently issued bankruptcy proceedings against Cooke. Cooke offered to secure his debt of £750,000 with an offer of £175,000, being his half share in the equity of his matrimonial home. This was refused and a bankruptcy order was made. Cooke appealed.

Cooke argued that Dunbar and the district judge had acted unreasonably in refusing his offer to secure or compound his debt under s271 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (s271) and that Dunbar was no better off in his bankruptcy than it would have been in accepting his offer, especially considering the security it held over his company's land. S271 provides that in determining whether the debtor is able to pay all his debts, the court shall take into account his contingent and prospective liabilities. Cooke considered his offer was one that no hypothetical creditor would have refused.

The High Court dismissed the appeal. It held that the prospect of a sale of the company's land in a sum guaranteed to extinguish the debt to Dunbar was not so certain as to make Cooke's offer to compound one that no reasonable creditor could refuse. No convincing evidence of an imminent sale had been adduced. Dunbar could be rightly sceptical as to the prospects of a sale which would in fact eliminate the debt.

As to the offer to secure or compound the debt under s271, it was for less than a quarter of his liability to Dunbar, was not a cash sum offer and did not relate to a liquid asset. It related to his interest in his matrimonial home where he lived with his wife who was in her 80s and who may have been unwilling to co-operate in achieving an early sale. It was likely that the trustee in bankruptcy would achieve a much quicker sale than if Dunbar applied for an order for sale as a secured creditor. It was not therefore unreasonable for Dunbar to refuse the offer.

Things to consider

The value of any security owned by the principal debtor is irrelevant in cases against guarantors except where evidence indicates timely anticipated receipt of proceeds from realisation of such security that might discharge all liabilities, including that of the guarantor, in which case an adjournment might be justified. In this case, there was only a slim speculative possibility of a sale which did not justify an adjournment of the petition let alone its dismissal.

Vendor's solicitor beware

Although no contractual or tortious duties are owed by a vendor's solicitor to a purchaser, a breach of trust arises where purchase monies are paid away in a fraudulent transaction.

In Purrunsing v A'Court & Co (a firm) and House Owners Conveyancers Ltd, a fraudster (D) engaged the first defendant to act for him in the sale of a property to the claimant. The second defendant acted for the claimant.

D did not own the property and provided false documentation including a false passport. The purchase price passed through both defendants' accounts and into D's Dubai bank account. The fraud was then discovered. Genuine completion had not therefore taken place. The fraud could have been discovered if the first defendant had attempted to contact its client at the address given for the owner on the Land Registry documentation. The purchase monies were not recovered.

Judgment was entered against the first defendant for breach of trust. The second defendant admitted breach of trust but denied breach of contract or negligence. Both defendants sought relief under s61 of the Trustee Act 1925 (s61) on the basis they had acted honestly and reasonably and ought fairly to be excused for the breach of trust and relieved wholly or partly from personal liability for the same.

The High Court held that the first defendant had failed to take appropriate steps to confirm that D was the registered proprietor of the property. It had failed to comply with the requirements of customer due diligence as identified in the Law Society's Conveyancing Handbook and Property and Registration Fraud Practice Note or to comply with the duties imposed by the Money Laundering Regulations.

The second defendant had not clarified ambiguous answers received in relation to ownership which indicated that the first defendant had no documents linking D to the property, had no personal knowledge of D, and had not verified the information available to it. As a consequence, it had not advised the claimant of the risk of proceeding. It was almost inconceivable that the claimant would have proceeded had he been advised properly. The second defendant was therefore in breach of contract and negligent.

As to relief under s61, the court held that the same standard of reasonableness applied to a vendor's solicitor as to a purchaser's solicitor even though the vendor's solicitor owed no duty of care to the purchaser. A vendor's solicitor is as much a trustee of purchase money while it is in his or her possession pending completion as a purchaser's solicitor. The funds were held on trust for the purchaser as beneficiary and there had been a breach of trust when it was wrongly paid out.

Neither defendant had acted reasonably and neither was entitled to any relief under s61. The High Court held both defendants equally liable for the loss.

Things to consider

The decision highlights the duties that flow from the status of trustee and confirms that a lesser standard of reasonableness will not be applied to a vendor's solicitor than a purchaser's solicitor.

Fresh bites of the cherry where subsequent causes of action arise

As a general rule, parties to litigation should advance all causes of action or arguments arising from a particular set of facts through one set of proceedings. In effect, a second or third "bite of the cherry" should not be permitted where the new claim or new remedy could and should have been pleaded in the first action.

This issue arose in Monks v National Westminster Bank plc and another. Monks had already brought one claim against the bank for errors in its record keeping which erroneously suggested there were debts on his mortgage account. That false information had been passed on to three credit reference agencies. Monks had successfully sought non-monetary remedies, being a grant of declaration and an order that the records be rectified.

The court had warned Monks (a litigant in person) who had indicated from the outset that he intended to bring financial claims once he had established liability, that he should bring all his complaints in the one set of proceedings. Despite this, Monks commenced a second claim raising new causes of action including defamation by reason of the publications to the credit reference agencies, malicious falsehood, breaches of the Data Protection Act 1998 and negligent mis-statement.

The bank sought to strike out the claim under Civil Procedure Rule 3.4(2) as disclosing no reasonable ground for bringing the claim and/or an abuse of process as the complaints should all have been brought in the first claim.

The High Court dismissed the bank's application although certain complaints were struck out. The bank had continued to publish the adverse reports to the agencies on a continuing basis from December 2009 until July 2015 and each time it did so, a separate cause of action arose. Monks could not be criticised for failing to bring into the first proceedings any claims where the cause of action had not by then arisen.

As to those causes of action that had accrued, had he sought to amend the first claim to bring them in, the trial would have been delayed and the cost of the pre-trial preparation and trial itself would have increased. Monks decision to first obtain a ruling as to his indebtedness and as to the accuracy of the monthly reports before dealing with the other aspects of his claim did not constitute, in the circumstances, an abuse of process.

Things to consider

There is public interest in achieving finality in litigation and in preventing unnecessary duplication of costs. However, the court will apply a broad merits based approach, depending upon the circumstances of the case. It does not therefore always follow that just because a claim could have been made in earlier proceedings it will be struck out for failure to do so.

No evidence of collusion to indicate a transaction at an undervalue

In Sands (as trustee for Singh) v Singh and others, the trustee sought to set aside several transactions secured upon Singh's property on the basis that they were shams or represented preferences within the meaning of s340 of the Insolvency Act 1986 (IA 1986).

In particular, one transaction was a trust deed and consent order in matrimonial proceedings under which Singh was to hold his beneficial interest in the matrimonial home (which he owned) on trust for the benefit of his two children, pay the mortgage secured on the property, pay a lump sum to his wife in settlement of any ancillary relief claims under the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 (the MCA) and pay maintenance for his children. The order and deed were finalised a few months before Singh was made bankrupt.

The trustee alleged that the consent order and trust deed should be set aside as constituting a transaction at an undervalue for the purposes of s339 IA 1986. He alleged collusion between Singh and his wife and that even if there had been no collusion, the transaction was one at an undervalue because the consideration Singh received was wholly inadequate.

The High Court held that giving up a claim for ancillary relief under the MCA constituted consideration under s339 IA 1986. The value of the claim for ancillary relief is generally taken to be equivalent to the value of the money and property required to be paid and transferred under the order. This applied whether the order was one by consent or following contested proceedings.

However, such an order could be set aside if there were vitiating factors such as collusion between spouses. Having reviewed the evidence available from the matrimonial proceedings, the court found there was no evidence of collusion and no persuasive circumstantial evidence.

Given the amount of debt secured on the property, the court found that what the wife and children were to receive pursuant to the trust deed and order was, on the face of it, far from overly generous to them and was therefore not a transaction at an undervalue which could be set aside.

Things to consider

Vitiating factors include fraud, mistake or misrepresentation as well as collusion. Although there may be circumstances where such an order could be challenged without there having been such collusion, such as where one party to a marriage has dishonestly concealed debts while at the same time overstated assets, the court is likely to be slow to set aside an order under the MCA in the absence of collusion.

Even given the court held one of the other transactions was a sham resulting in the equity in the property being greater than had appeared to be the case, the order under the was still one that a court could have made in all the circumstances and so the transaction was not one at an undervalue.

Exercise of discretion under Part 36

Where a claimant makes an offer to settle its claim under Part 36 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and obtains a more advantageous judgment following trial than its Part 36 offer, it is entitled to its costs on an indemnity basis, as well as various other enhancements, from 21 days after it made the offer.

The Court of Appeal, in Webb (by her litigation friend Stacey Perkins) v Liverpool Women's NHS Foundation Trust had to determine whether that entitlement included the costs of part of the claim which the claimant had failed to establish.

The claimant had made two allegations of negligence, only one of which succeeded. Despite this, the judgment was still more advantageous than the claimant's Part 36 offer. At first instance the trial judge exercised his discretion under Part 44 of the CPR and made an issue based costs award, depriving the claimant of her costs of the unsuccessful allegation, and then applied Part 36 indemnity costs and enhanced provisions to the costs of the successful allegation. The claimant appealed.

The Court of Appeal held that the two allegations had been part of the same event, namely the claimant's birth. The claimant had not been unreasonable in pursuing the unsuccessful allegation. Many claimants do not succeed on all parts of their claim and are not penalised in costs. Part 36 entitles a successful claimant that "beats" its offer to costs on the indemnity basis unless it would be unjust to award such costs. Part 36 is a self-contained code and the court should not first exercise its discretion under the costs rules generally (under Part 44 CPR) before applying Part 36.

The discretion in Part 36 enables the court to consider the basis of assessment of costs and what costs should be included. Part 36 did not preclude an issue based costs award or a proportionate costs order but such orders should only be made where the court considers it would be unjust in all the circumstances of the case to award all or part of the costs.

If it would not be unjust, they should be awarded, regardless of the fact that they might not be awarded under the general costs provisions in Part 44. The unsuccessful defendant could have avoided those costs and the costs of trial by accepting what proved to be a reasonable offer of settlement. It was not unjust to award the claimant all of her costs.

Things to consider

Part 36 is a self-contained code. The court does not have an unfettered discretion to depart from the ordinary costs consequences set out in Part 36 (i.e. indemnity costs on this occasion) but can do so where injustice would otherwise be suffered. If that were not the case, the whole purpose of Part 36 in promoting compromise and avoiding unnecessary expenditure of costs and court time would be undermined.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions