Robinson v Bailey
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Date | 1942 |
| Year | 1942 |
| Court | Chancery Division |
Judgment - Enforcement - Charging order - Future liabilities - Discretion.
By an order made in a specific performance action the court directed that 50 l. a year should be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant until the execution by the defendant of certain documents. The plaintiff obtained a charging order nisi against the defendant directing that, until the execution by him of the documents, 3333 l. local loan stock, the property of the defendant, should stand charged with the payment of the 50 l. a year:—
Held, that, although the court had jurisdiction to make the charging order, that jurisdiction ought to be exercised with the greatest care when it was intended to secure future payments and, particularly, when such payments were conditional on the continued life of the plaintiff, and that, in the present case, it would not be a proper exercise of the discretion to make a charging order locking up what appeared to be one of the defendant's substantial assets, if not the only one, to satisfy so small a debt.
Bagnall v. Carlton (
PROCEDURE SUMMONS.
On February 25, 1941, the plaintiff Lily Mary Robinson, obtained judgment against the defendant, William Lewis Bailey, in an action for specific performance. The order directed that the defendant should pay to the plaintiff 72 l. by way of damages, an annual sum of 50 l. by equal quarterly instalments, until the execution by the defendant of certain documents, and the taxed costs of the action. The defendant failed to pay these sums, with the result that, in December, 1941, 275 l. 13s. had become due from him. On December 23, 1941, the plaintiff obtained an order charging 3333 l. local loans stock, to which the defendant was entitled, with the payment of the 275 l. 13s. That sum was paid, but the documents remained unexecuted. On January 14, 1942, before any further quarterly instalment of the 50 l. a year had become due, the plaintiff obtained ex parte a second charging order in which it was ordered that the local loans stock, or, if sold, the proceeds of the sale, should, until the execution by the defendant of the documents, stand charged with the payment of the 50 l. a year. On January 25, 1942, a quarterly instalment of 12 l. 10s. became due and was paid. Under the usual provision contained in the charging order the defendant sought to show cause why it should not be made absolute and, by a procedure summons, applied to the court for its discharge.
F. C. Watmough for the defendant. A charging order...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Bank Bumiputra (M) Bhd v Cheong Yoke Choy (Malaysian Central Depository Sdn Bhd, proposed intervener)
-
Zoe Claire Bucknell v Alchemy Estates (Holywell) Ltd
... ... uses as were reasonably required at the date of the grant: see eg White v Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, Limited [1913] 1 Ch 113, 116 ; Robinson v Bailey [1948] 2 All ER 791 ; British Railways Board v Glass [1965] Ch 538, 558F ; Jelbert v Davis [1968] 1 WLR 589 ; Holmes v Hughes , ... ...
- St. Edmundsbury and Ipswich Diocesan Board of Finance v Clark (No. 2)
-
Packman Lucas Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd and Another
...the White Book, at paragraph 73.4.5, qualifies this passage by saying “it would not normally be a proper exercise of discretion…”, although Robinson is still given as the relevant 22 On a proper analysis, I do not consider that Robinson v Bailey is unequivocal authority for either of these ......
-
Orders For Sale
...had suggested that it would not be a proper exercise of the court's discretion to make an order in such circumstances (Robinson v Bailey [1942] 1 Ch 268). The case is a reminder that obtaining a charging order and an order for sale may be a useful mode of enforcement of adjudicator's decisi......