A security taken over a debtor’s land may, for one reason or another, only amount to an equitable charge. A not uncommon instance is where, as occurred in Bland v Ingram’s Estates Ltd (No 1) [2001] 24 EG 163, the charge results from a charging order obtained in court proceedings to recover a debt.
In that case, the charge was over a leasehold interest that had been forfeited by the landlord. The question was what right, if any, did the chargee have to seek relief.
If relief is sought in the High Court, the bad news fom Bland is that no such application can be made under section 146(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925, nor under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. However, the chargee was pleased to be told that she could apply (indirectly) for an order for the restoration of the lease, so long as the defaulting lessee was made a party to the application.
Where the forfeiture is solely for non-payment of rent, there are strong suggestions in Bland that use of the indirect method is not necessary for an application under section 138 of the County Courts Act 1984: see subsection (9C), added by the Administration of Justice Act 1985.
Start your free trial today
Your trusted daily source of commercial real estate news and analysis. Register now for unlimited digital access throughout April.
Including:
- Breaking news, interviews and market updates
- Expert legal commentary, market trends and case law
- In-depth reports and data-led analysis
A security taken over a debtor’s land may, for one reason or another, only amount to an equitable charge. A not uncommon instance is where, as occurred in Bland v Ingram’s Estates Ltd (No 1) [2001] 24 EG 163, the charge results from a charging order obtained in court proceedings to recover a debt.
In that case, the charge was over a leasehold interest that had been forfeited by the landlord. The question was what right, if any, did the chargee have to seek relief.
If relief is sought in the High Court, the bad news fom Bland is that no such application can be made under section 146(4) of the Law of Property Act 1925, nor under the court’s inherent jurisdiction. However, the chargee was pleased to be told that she could apply (indirectly) for an order for the restoration of the lease, so long as the defaulting lessee was made a party to the application.
Where the forfeiture is solely for non-payment of rent, there are strong suggestions in Bland that use of the indirect method is not necessary for an application under section 138 of the County Courts Act 1984: see subsection (9C), added by the Administration of Justice Act 1985.
