Angel Solicitors (A Firm) v Jenkins O'Dowd & Barth (A Firm) & (1) Barclays Bank Plc (2) Close Brothers Limited (3) Ellenwell Properties Limited

[2009] EWHC 46 (Ch); [2009] 1 WLR 1220; [2009] PNLR 19; [2009] NPC 9

19th September 2009

High Court


C applied for summary enforcement of undertakings given by D in the course of conveying three properties. These were the usual form of undertaking to discharge charges on completion of the transaction. Barclays had an all-monies charge over two properties securing the indebtedness of substantially in excess of the value of the properties. Close had an all-monies over the third property. D did not seek a redemption figure prior to giving the undertakings. Barclays and Close openly indicated that they would release their charges for amounts less than the full secured indebtedness, such amounts being broadly the full net proceeds of sale realised by the sales of the properties. D sought to join Barclays and Close to the proceedings, arguing that Barclays and Close would have released the charges for a lesser amount if asked for a redemption figure during the course of the conveyancing transactions. D invited the Court to order an inquiry as to what amount would have been agreed by Barclays and Close at that time, on the basis that this was relevant as to the extent to which the Court should enforce its undertakings.


The actual sums that Barclays and Close might have required in the past had D sought a redemption figure at the correct time were irrelevant to the question of enforcing the undertakings. There was no basis on which the instant court could impose upon Barclays or Close a redemption figure merely because it may have been prepared to agree a lesser figure at an earlier time. The application to join Barclays and Close was dismissed accordingly. C’s application for summary judgment was granted.

Associated Members:

Practice Areas:

© New Square Chambers Ltd