Piranty v Parsons

A person seeking redemption of a charge must ordinarily ascertain and tender the amount properly secured. Where the parties disagree about valuation or the relevant valuation date, a dispute does not itself excuse tender or make the right to redeem crystallise earlier. An exception may arise where the charge-holder makes a wrongful claim and insists on payment of the full amount claimed. A charge-holder may also be prevented from relying on a repairing covenant where unconscionable conduct has caused an improper benefit. Mere disagreement about value, or procedural delay caused by the claimant’s own conduct, is insufficient.

The appellant had received the former matrimonial home subject to a charge securing 37.5 per cent of its gross value. She sought redemption, but the parties disputed the property’s value and valuation date. The respondent also claimed damages for breach of a repairing covenant after the property had been neglected while occupied by a third party.

The Bristol County Court fixed the redemption sum at £33,750 and awarded £21,000 damages. The appellant appealed, arguing that the respondent’s conduct excused a tender and prevented reliance on the repairing covenant.

1. Appeal dismissed. The order fixing the redemption sum and the award of damages were upheld.
2. The court applied the principle in Popat v Popat [1991] 2 FLR 163: once the amount secured by a charge has been properly ascertained and tendered, the chargor is ordinarily entitled to redeem. The appellant had made no proper tender.
3. The respondent’s disagreement with the appellant’s valuation and proposed valuation date did not amount to a wrongful claim. He did not deny the right to redeem, demand more than the contractual percentage, or insist that his own valuation had to be accepted. The appellant therefore remained obliged to tender the correct amount. Since the court had to determine value, it was logical to use the agreed valuation obtained shortly before trial.
4. The court distinguished Albermarle Supply Company Ltd v Hind & Co [1928] 1 KB 306. The circumstances which may excuse tender where a lien-holder insists on an excessive or wrongful claim were not present.
5. The court accepted the principle, derived by analogy from Alghussein Establishment v Eton College [1988] 1 WLR 587, that a party should not profit from its own wrong. However, the respondent had not behaved unconscionably or inequitably. The delay resulted substantially from the appellant’s decisions, including issuing proceedings in the wrong court, making unsuccessful applications, failing to co-operate in obtaining a joint valuation, and failing to make a proper tender.
6. It was common ground, applying Lurcott v Wakely & Wheeler [1911] 1 KB 905, that the repairing covenant required the appellant to put the property into good repair even if it was not already in that condition. The respondent was therefore not precluded from claiming damages.
7. The appeal was dismissed with costs on the stated public-funding basis.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Appeal from the judgment of His Honour Judge Bursell QC in the Bristol County Court on 7 February 2001. The appeal was dismissed with costs.