Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2002] All ER (D) 170 (Mar)
Court: Chancery Division
Judge:

John Jarvis QC sitting as a deputy judge of the High Court

Representation James Thom (instructed by Glovers) for the claimant.
  Wendy Parker (instructed by Engleharts, Brighton and Hove) for the defendants.
Judgment Dates: 12 March 2002

Catchwords

Subrogation - Circumstances in which doctrine applicable - Mortgage - Claimant discovering defendant registering equitable charge over property - Claimant seeking subrogation under rights of a third party's charge - Claimant and defendant agreeing to reserve argument as to equitable priority - Whether claimant's interest having priority over defendant's interest in the property.

The Case

The test when applying the restitutionary remedy of subrogation was whether the defendant had been enriched at the claimant's expense, whether that enrichment was justified and whether there was a policy reason to deny that remedy. In the instant case there were no factors which prevented the court holding that the present matter was a classic case where the claimant was entitled to subrogation.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.