Home Page > Monthly Update > Mortgages.

Home Page
Editorial Team

Boundaries and adverse possession.
Business lease renewal.
Co-ownership and estoppel.
Landlord and tenant (general).
Long leases.
Mobile homes.
Nuisance and trespass.
Property litigation and ADR.
Property transactions.
Public access to land.
Residential tenancies.
Restrictive covenants.

Current page


The editor of this section of the site is Nigel Clayton of Kings Chambers, Leeds and Manchester. Nigel also maintains the specialist website dealing with mortgages at www.legalmortgage.co.uk

There are three cases this month:
  • An interim charging order could be made pending any challenge to the registration of a foreign judgment.
  • A final charging order could be made where property which was held by a trustee without reference to the beneficiary.
  • An application to alter the register to remove the registered proprietors and a charge was cancelled.

Charging order

Entitlement to interim order, and determination of beneficial ownership

Premium Jet AG v Sutton
[2017] EWHC 186 (QB)


The court could make an interim charging order, the effect of which was to preserve property, pending any challenge to the registration of a foreign judgment on which the charge was based. The court went on to consider the extent of the debtor’s beneficial interest in the property.


C obtained a judgment against D from a court in Zurich, which it applied to register in the Queen’s Bench Division pursuant to the Lugano Convention. The Court made the order, but on terms that any appeal or execution on the judgment would not issue until after one month (or the determination of any appeal). Subsequently, C applied for and obtained an interim charging order against D’s beneficial interest in property.

D opposed the making of a final charging order, relying on a declaration of trust which declared that he only had a 1% interest in the property, and contended that the interim charging order should be set aside as premature, since it constituted taking steps to enforce the judgment. While C did not assert that the declaration of trust was a sham, it did contend that it should be set aside under s 423 Insolvency Act 1986 as a transaction which was intended to defraud creditors.


The High Court made the final charging order but this was restricted to D’s 1% interest.

Although it was logical that the rules would seek to prevent a foreign judgment being enforced before ... THIS IS AN EXTRACT OF THE FULL TEXT. TO GET THE FULL TEXT, SEE BELOW

Existing members, to login click => here
If you have found this page useful, you may be interested in the following:

Free Summaries £nil
Full Membership From £207 + VAT (1 year)