Someone recently bought our

students are currently browsing our notes.


Barclays Bank V. Guy Notes

BCL Law Notes > Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes

This is an extract of our Barclays Bank V. Guy document, which we sell as part of our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes collection written by the top tier of Oxford students.

The following is a more accessble plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

BARCLAYS BANK V. GUY FACTS On 22nd June 2004 the property was transferred by the defendant to Ten Acre. On 30th July 2004 the transfer was registered against each of the registered titles to the property, the price being recorded as PS15m. On 8th March 2005 Ten Acre, Lexi Holdings Plc, which I will refer to as Lexi, a related company, and the claimant entered into the charge. By clause 2, Ten Acre charged the property as security for the payment or discharge of all monies and liabilities for the time being due, owing or incurred to the claimant, whether by Ten Acre or Lexi. By clause 5 of the charge the statutory power of sale was exercisable at any time after demand. Accordingly, the charge was an all monies charged, which explains why such a large amount of money, well in excess of the value of the property, is apparently secured by the charge. On 11th March 2005 the same parties entered into a deed of priorities by which the charge was granted priority over an earlier charge in favour of Lexi. Proceedings for sale by Barclays Bank: On 5th October 2006 the claimant demanded repayment by Lexi of the sum of PS102m odd due under a credit facility. Lexi failed to satisfy that demand. On 5th October 2006 the claimant appointed insolvency practitioners from KPMG as joint administrators of Lexi. By an administration order made on 18th October 2006 the same insolvency practitioners were also appointed joint administrators of Ten Acre. By letter dated 9th August 2007 the joint administrators of Ten Acre consented to these proceedings and to the sale of the property by the claimant. Defendant's argument: The defendant's draft defence and counterclaim seeks to defend the claimant's claim on two bases. First, it asserts that the charge is not a genuine legal document. I refer to paragraphs 1 and 2 of the draft defence, although no reasons are given for the assertion in the draft defence. Secondly it asserts that the transfer of the property by the defendant to Ten Acre on 22nd June 2004 by a document, which I shall refer to as the transfer, was fraudulently procured by Ten Acre. As a result the Defendant contends that the transfer is void, at paragraphs 3 and 4 of the draft defence, and that the charge is invalid or ineffective, and that he is entitled to rectification of the register as against the claimant. HOLDING Property is deemed to be vested in the registered owner The claimant contends that assuming in the defendant's favour that the transfer was fraudulently procured by Ten Acre, which is not a

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Restitution of Unjust Enrichment BCL Notes.

More Restitution Of Unjust Enrichment Bcl Samples