![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Gill & Anor v Grovewood Farm Dairies [2008] EWHC 1303 (Ch) (11 March 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2008/1303.html Cite as: [2008] EWHC 1303 (Ch) |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
CHANCERY DIVISION
BIRMINGHAM DISTRICT REGISTRY
The Priory Courts 33 Bull Street Birmingham B4 6DS |
||
B e f o r e :
sitting as a High Court Judge and as a Circuit Judge
____________________
BAHADER SINGH GILL and PAULO KAUR GILL |
Appellants |
|
- V - |
||
GROVEWOOD FARM DAIRIES |
Respondent |
____________________
6th Floor, 12-14 New Fetter Lane, London EC4A 1AG.
Telephone No: 020 7936 6000. Fax No: 020 7427 0093
MR. ROBERTSON-SMITH, solicitor, appeared for the Respondent.
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
JUDGE PURLE:
"It has been suggested that this leads to the anomalous position that a county court has a limited jurisdiction in the generally simple case of the charge over a property in the debtor's sole name but an unlimited jurisdiction in the generally more complex case of properties in joint names. Some support for this may be derived from the presence in the 1991 order of Article 2 (4) restricting jurisdiction under sections 89 to 92 of the Law of Property Act in the absence of an equivalent provision for the enforcement of charges under section 14 of the 1996 Act."
"This issue does not arise for decision in this case because the property in question is in the sole name of the debtor."
I pause there. I consider that the issue does not arise for decision in this case either. The property with which we are concerned, namely, property at 368 Redditch Road, Kings Norton, Birmingham, is in joint names, it is true, but the judgment debtors are also the same two people. So there is no difference of identity between the legal owners and the judgment debtors. The possible anomaly to which David Richards J referred arose only where the judgment debtor was one only of more than one co-owners so that a charging order could only take effect on his equitable share.
(i) Proceedings relating to residential mortgages (unless a serious issue arises, for example, as to the occupation rights of a third party and as to whether the mortgagee's rights prevail over those of such a third party);
(ii) Claims to enforce a charging order.