|Judgment - Banque Financière De La Cité v. Parc (Battersea) Limited and Others continued|
|(back to preceding
The claim made by BFC that it is entitled to subrogation to RTB's charge on Parc's Battersea property is advanced on the basis that it expected the letter of postponement to give it security for its loan, but this expectation was disappointed because it transpired that OOL was not bound by the letter. Therefore the question arises whether, if the letter had been enforceable against OOL, the letter would have given the bank a "security", so that the letter can now be regarded as a "defective security". In my opinion it can, because BFC expected that by reason of the letter its loan would be repaid in priority to the debts owing by Parc to the companies in the Omni group, and I consider that if the letter had operated in that way, it would have given BFC protection which can be regarded as a form of security.
Another principal argument advanced on behalf of OOL was that any enrichment of OOL at the expense of BFC was not unjust. A number of reasons were advanced in support of this contention. One reason related to the security which BFC did receive in respect of its loan and to a security which it decided not to require. In the discussions prior to the making of the loan to Mr. Herzig BFC stipulated for, and obtained, security in the form of a pledge of 35,000 bearer shares in Holding (with an initial margin of cover of about 160 per cent), and this pledge of shares would have constituted ample security for the loan if the Omni group had not become insolvent. Moreover, whereas the bank had originally required a second charge to be granted to it over Parc's Battersea property, it subsequently agreed not to require such a charge. Therefore it was submitted that the remedy of subrogation should not be granted to a lender who had got all that it bargained for in lending to the borrower. In particular, a new lender who lends on an unsecured basis will not be entitled to be subrogated to the security of an earlier lender. In support of this submission Mr. Kosmin relied on the judgment of Oliver J. in Paul v. Speirway Ltd.  1 Ch. 220, 233B where he said:
It was submitted that, equally, a new lender who bargains for and gets his own security should not be subrogated to the security of an earlier lender merely because its security turned out to be inadequate.
Linked to this submission was the further submission that there was no mutual intention on the part of BFC and Parc that BFC should be subrogated to the rights of RTB. My Lords, I agree with the view of my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann that the concept of mutual intention, whether actual or presumed, can be artificial in a case such as the present one, where the claim to subrogation arises because the security intended by the lender has proved to be defective. In my opinion in such circumstances the doctrine of subrogation is to be applied unless its application will produce an unjust result. This view finds strong support in the judgment of Nicholls J. in Boodle Hatfield & Co. v. British Films Ltd.  P.C.C. 176, where, after referring to the judgments in the Orakpo case, he stated at p. 182:
And at p. 183:
This view is also supported by the judgment of Oliver J. in Paul v. Speirway Ltd.  Ch. 220, 232B where he said:
A further submission was that as BFC had not maintained its original requirement to have a charge on Parcs' Battersea property, and had obtained the security it required, which was the pledge of shares in Holding, BFC would receive more than it had bargained for if it were granted subrogation. I do not accept this submission because, in the events which have happened, there are competing claims by BFC and OOL to priority in receiving payment from Parc's remaining asset, the Battersea property. Therefore, as Robert Walker J. observed at p. 65 of his judgment, to permit BFC to be subrogated to the RTB security, to the extent of its loan to Mr. Herzig, would give rise to a result not dissimilar to that which would have occurred if the postponement letter had operated as BFC had expected.
It was also submitted on behalf of OOL that BFC should not be subrogated to RTB's security because it had neglected to take simple steps to ensure that the letter of postponement would operate effectively to bind the other companies of the Omni group. In my opinion this submission is invalid because there is no requirement that before a lender can claim the benefit of subrogation he must show that he took reasonable precautions to ensure that the security for which he stipulated would be effective. It is because the intended security proved to be defective that the need for subrogation arises.
It was further submitted that there was no misrepresentation or sharp practice on the part of OOL or Parc, and that this was a consideration which pointed to the conclusion that there was no unjust enrichment of OOL. But in my opinion a remedy for unjust enrichment is granted where the defendant has been enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, and it would be unjust to allow the defendant to retain the enrichment. I consider that for a plaintiff to establish that it would be unjust for the defendant to keep the benefit which he had gained at the expense of the plaintiff, the plaintiff does not need to prove that the defendant was guilty of misconduct. In order for a claim for unjust enrichment to succeed at common law the plaintiff does not have to prove a wrong committed by the defendant against him. In Lipkin Gorman v. Kaspuale Ltd.  2 A.C. 548, 572E Lord Goff of Chieveley stated:
A separate submission advanced by Mr. Kosmin was that where the creditor who held a charge over the property of the debtor received payment by reason of a subsequent loan made to the debtor by a new lender, the essence of the subrogation granted to the new lender was the acquisition by him of the benefit of the charge held by the creditor who had been paid off: that, as stated by Lord Diplock in the Orakpo case  A.C. 95, 104D, there is "a transfer of rights from one person to another, without assignment or assent of the person from whom the rights are transferred and which takes place by operation of law". But in the present case there were two closely linked and inter-related reasons why subrogation should not be granted to BFC. One reason was that the payment of about £10m. which RTB received from Mr. Herzig did not discharge the entire debt owing to it by Parc. A balance of more than £10m. remained owing, and the charge held by RTB remained in being as security for that balance (although it was subsequently repaid to RTB at the end of October 1990 with money advanced by OOL). Therefore it was not conceptually possible for BFC to be subrogated to RTB's charge. Before the Court of Appeal BFC relied upon the decision of Romer J. in Chetwynd v. Allen  1 Ch. 353 in answer to this submission. In his judgment at p. 24 Morritt L.J. referred to the passage at p. 359 in the judgment of Romer J. where he made it clear that his decision in that case was not based on the principle of subrogation, and accordingly Morritt L.J. stated that he did not regard the decision as being of any assistance to BFC.
My Lords, I consider that the decision does materially assist BFC, as it establishes that a lender, whose loan is used to discharge part of a sum owing on a mortgage, will be treated by equity as having a charge on the mortgaged property to secure his loan without prejudice to the security given by the mortgage to the first lender. In Chetwynd v. Allen  1 Ch. 353 there was a mortgage to Terrell of two properties, the "Cedars", of which Chetwynd's wife, the plaintiff, was the beneficial owner, and the "Riding School" owned by Chetwynd, to secure £2,000 lent to him by Terrell. Mynors subsequently lent £1,200 to Chetwynd on a promise by Chetwynd that he should have a transfer of the earlier mortgage to Terrell, and Chetwynd applied £1,000 of the sum of £1,200 advanced by Mynors in partial repayment of the loan of £2,000 made by Terrell. Romer J. stated, at p. 357:
It is somewhat puzzling to read, at the present day, the statement relating to subrogation at the end of Romer J's. judgment, to which Morritt L.J. referred, and which clearly influenced him to hold, erroneously in my respectful opinion, that the decision was not of assistance to BFC. The report of Chetwynd v. Allen  1 Ch. 353, 355 states that after having ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Chetwynd's wife, on a number of points which had been raised, Romer J. reserved for further consideration "the question which had been raised as to the right of the defendant Mynors to be subrogated to the rights of Terrell under the mortgage of June 4, 1891, so far as concerned the £1000 paid off to Terrell out of the £1200 advanced by Mynors to Chetwynd." And at p. 356 it is reported that in the subsequent argument on the reserved question counsel for Mynors submitted that "Mynors is entitled on the principle of subrogation to stand in the shoes of Terrell to the extent of the £1000 paid off to him out of the £1200." I consider that the decision of Romer J. in favour of Mynors was a decision which today would be described as one that Mynors was entitled to the extent of £1000 to a charge upon the "Cedars" under the doctrine of subrogation, and it appears that the decision was treated as an application of that doctrine by Lord Jenkins in the Ghana Commercial Bank case  A.C. 732, 745. It may be that Romer J. considered at the time of his decision, 100 years ago, that a case should not be regarded as one to which the principle of subrogation applied unless the debt of the first lender was completely discharged and the new lender succeeded to the entirety of the charge held by the first lender. Whilst that is the usual situation where the new lender is entitled to subrogation, it is not the only situation, because as Goff and Jones on the Law of Restitution, 4th ed. (1993) state at p. 593:
And in Burston Finance Ltd. v. Speirway Ltd.  1 W.L.R. 1648, 1652 Walton J., referring to subrogation, stated:
The second related reason relied on by Mr. Kosmin as to why BFC could not be subrogated in part to RTB's charge, ranking behind the balance of the charge held by RTB, was because this would not, in reality, have constituted subrogation to RTB's rights but a grant to BFC by the court of new rights created specially for the purpose. Mr. Kosmin's submission was that the court had no jurisdiction to confer such new rights.
In my opinion this submission is invalid because it fails to take account of the consideration that the doctrine of subrogation applies in a variety of different circumstances where the defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of the plaintiff, and where equity considers that it would be unconscionable for the defendant to retain that enrichment. In such a case, as Goff and Jones say, the remedy is fashioned to the facts of the particular case. In the Orakpo case at 104E Lord Diplock stated that some rights by subrogation "appear to defeat classification except as an empirical remedy to prevent a particular kind of unjust enrichment."
And in Boscawen v. Bajwa  1 W.L.R. 328, 335 Millett L.J. referring to subrogation, said:
Therefore, in the present case, where OOL was enriched at the expense of BFC, where it would be unconscionable to permit OOL to retain that enrichment, and where BFC had expected to receive the form of security constituted by the postponement of the demands of OOL and the other companies in the group, I consider that BFC is entitled in the circumstances to the order made by Robert Walker J. (subject to the amendment proposed by my noble and learned friend Lord Hoffmann), the effect of which is that its loan will be repaid in priority to the payment claimed by OOL.
As I have observed, the submissions advanced by Mr. Kosmin to this House were largely accepted by the Court of Appeal, and the grounds upon which Morritt L.J. held in favour of OOL can be summarised as follows (in a different order to that stated by the learned Lord Justice). First, the failure of the BFC to obtain the security for which it stipulated, which was an agreement binding on all the companies of the Omni group that they would postpone their demands against Parc, was due entirely to the failure of BFC to take the normal and elementary precautions. Secondly, there had been no misrepresentation or sharp practice on the part of OOL. Thirdly, there was the conceptual difficulty that BFC could not be subrogated to the rights given by RTB's charge when that charge remained vested in RTB to secure the balance of the debt owing to it, and the decision of Romer J. in Chetwynd v. Allen  1 Ch. 353 did not assist BFC. For the reasons which I have stated in considering the submissions advanced by Mr. Kosmin I am unable to agree with these grounds given by Morritt L.J. for dismissing BFC's claim.
In addition there was a further reason for dismissing the bank's action given by Morritt L.J., which was a reason advanced to Robert Walker J. and the Court of Appeal by Mr. Kosmin, but which he did not rely upon as a separate ground before the House. This was that the loan was made by the bank to Mr. Herzig, and not to Parc, in order to avoid the impact of the Swiss Federal Banking regulations. The decision of Robert Walker J. at p. 63 of his judgment on this aspect of the case was as follows:
I consider that the conclusion of Robert Walker J. on this point was correct and I agree with his view that the breach of the reporting requirement should not prevent the court from remedying the unjust enrichment of OOL at the expense of BFC.
Accordingly I would allow this appeal and restore the order of Robert Walker J. with the proposed amendment.
Lords Parliament Commons Search Contact Us Index
|© Parliamentary copyright 1998||Prepared 26 February 1998|