83,240
edits
Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) m (Amwelladmin moved page Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd - Case Note to Crowther v Arbuthnot Latham & Co Ltd) |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Crowther argued that “reasonableness” in this case 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” in this case 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 (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have asked for a bigger spread on the interest. The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. {{t|Schoolboy error}} from the private bankers here. Nor did Arbuthnot have any evidence that the property value had slumped, nor that there was much sign it was likely to rally. | Arbuthnot said (per {{casenote|Barclays|Unicredit}}) it was seeking to protect its own commercial interests: if they had thought their loan would be unsecured to the tune of 1.7m, they would have asked for a bigger spread on the interest. | ||
The problem with this argument was that this is exactly what Arbuthnot ''had'' done: By common agreement the property was never worth more than £4m, even when Arbuthnot advanced the loan. {{t|Schoolboy error}} from the private bankers here. Nor did Arbuthnot have any evidence that the property value had slumped, nor that there was much sign it was likely to rally. | |||
Waksman QC decided that Arbuthnot ''had'' unreasonably withheld consent: why, he asked, should Arbuthnot be entitled to insist on anything more than the sale of a property at a fair price? Arbuthnot’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be to secure more collateral, thereby correcting the bad bargain they had made in the first place. | Waksman QC decided that Arbuthnot ''had'' unreasonably withheld consent: why, he asked, should Arbuthnot be entitled to insist on anything more than the sale of a property at a fair price? Arbuthnot’s stated reason for withholding consent seemed to be to secure more collateral, thereby correcting the bad bargain they had made in the first place. | ||