or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments
High Court refuses injunctions and declarations in relation a property in London to the effect that the apartment is no longer charged in favour of the defendant for borrowings extended to the plaintiff and his company, the court rejecting claims that there was a binding agreement between him and a bank to the effect that his charge was released, and rejecting his technical legal arguments alleging that the assignment and transfer of the loan facilities, the guarantees and the charge to a vulture fund were not properly effected.
Commercial court – plaintiff seeking injunctions and declarations in relation a property in London to the effect that the apartment is no longer charged in favour of the Defendant for borrowings extended to the plaintiff and his company – alleged that he had made a binding agreement to the effect that the charge was released – argued that the assignment of his loan to a vulture fund was invalid – counter claim for €4,309,428 - loan facilities and guarantees - alleged agreement to release the Charge - Court prefers the evidence given by employee of bank – Court finds that no binding agreement ever existed - financial climate at time of the ‘agreement’ for the release of the Charge – reliability of plaintiff’s evidence - reasons for finding that no binding agreement - technical legal challenges to fund’s rights - failure to get his consent to the assignment of the loan - challenge to the mechanics of the transfer to the fund – plaintiff acknowledged debts which he now says were not acquired.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.