Avalanche Of Irrelevant Disclosure Hampers Evaluation Of Beneficial Interest Claims In Charging Order Enforcement Proceedings

In the case of Green v Danaher K01ME209 the Liquidator of Vanquish Developments Limited sought to enforce charging orders following judgment debts obtained as far back as 2021.

A dispute arose following the liquidator obtaining a second judgment for £486,142.95 plus interest and costs on 9 November 2021, as to the beneficial interests in the property 145 Grovehurst Road, Sittingbourne, Kent, ME10 2TA.

The properties at stake were registered in the names of D1 and D2 with D3 and D4 claiming a beneficial interest by way of a counter claim of £216,457.16 and a life interest trust from their interest in the property. The basis of the claim was payment of land and materials to construct the annex and a contribution of £69,000 to the purchase of the property in 1999.

D3 and D4 were D2’s parents.

Irrelevant Document Disclosure

The court seemed unimpressed with the documentary disclosure of the D’s and this perhaps highlights the risks of a kitchen sink approach:

… I do not accept that there has been any misunderstanding about what documents should be disclosed, or indeed when. The case has always been about financial contributions to property and the building costs. No-one, particularly someone legally represented, could have thought that either the Claimant or the Court would want to have receipts and invoices which are irrelevant. Whatever the reason for the avalanche of irrelevant documents, it has not made it easier to locate evidence to assist the Defendants to prove their case.

 …

The third part of the counterclaim is whether a trust has arisen from the building of the annex. I have said above that I have not been helped in my task by the paucity of relevant evidence, and sheer volume of irrelevant documentation.

…

Both D1 and D3 accept that there are numerous items which are not relevant to building works. D1 was asked how we are supposed to know which are the relevant highlighted items and which are not. He flippantly replied that “it was obvious”.

It is not obvious at all. Nowhere in the evidence has he or any other Defendant set out what work was actually involved or when, or what the cost was or was likely to be. I have seen no plans, no building regulations requirements, no surveyors report. I accept the evidence of D3 that an annex was built, but I have no information at all to tell me what that involved or when or what the cost was. If receipts are unavailable, such explanation ought to have come in witness evidence. The Court is being invited to guess, when it is for the Defendants to prove. I am not assisted at all by the receipts or invoices.

The court found there was no evidence to support the beneficial interest of D3 and D4 and a possession order was the end result.