83,240
edits
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) (Created page with "A case which doesn’t, despite appearances, row back on the excellent principles uncovered in {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}, but rather validates them. Crowther v Arbuthno...") |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Crowther argued that reasonableness could only be determined by reference to the proposed sale price: if it was a fair market value and nothing else was likely to happen to materially affect the property's value between the sale and maturity of the loan, Arbuthnot could not reasonably withhold consent. | Crowther argued that reasonableness could only be determined by reference to the proposed sale price: if it was a fair market value and nothing else was likely to happen to materially affect the property's value between the sale and maturity of the loan, Arbuthnot could not reasonably withhold consent. | ||
Arbuthnot said it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: If | Arbuthnot said it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: If they had thought their loan was to be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have asked for a bigger spread on the interest. Arbuthnot’s problem here was that this is exactly what they ''had'' done: the property was agreed not to have been worth more than £4m even at the time of creation of the loan. {{t|Schoolboy error}} from the private bankers here. Nor was there evidence that the property value had slumped, or that there was much sign it was likely to rally. | ||
Waksman QC in Crowther v Arbuthnot decided that the bank had unreasonably withheld consent. It was hard to see why Arbuthnot should be able to insist on anything mroe than the sale of a property at a fair price and the bank’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be aimed at securing more collateral than they has achieved at first — that is correcting a bad deal they had made. | Waksman QC in Crowther v Arbuthnot decided that the bank had unreasonably withheld consent. It was hard to see why Arbuthnot should be able to insist on anything mroe than the sale of a property at a fair price and the bank’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be aimed at securing more collateral than they has achieved at first — that is correcting a bad deal they had made. |