Andrew Brookes, Partner
Email Andrew
Cascabel loaned Vedalease £600,000 to buy a freehold property. Vedalease signed a deed of trust to give a 25% share of the property to A, the company that had introduced them to Cascabel. Vedalease subsequently disputed the validity of the deed of trust. When Vedalease sought to redeem the loan, Cascabel and A refused to co-operate unless Vedalease accepted A's rights under the deed. Vedalease then ceased to pay the interest due so Cascabel appointed new solicitors and receivers in respect of the property under the Law of Property Act 1925.
Vedalease obtained a declaration that the deed of trust was void. In the same proceedings, Vedalease alleged improper conduct by Cascabel. However, Cascabel revived a counter-claim when Vedalease failed to comply with the terms of a consent order. As part of the counter-claim, Cascabel added its costs of instructing its new solicitor, citing them as being reasonable costs incurred in obtaining repayment of the loan and redemption of the charge. Vedalease was ordered to pay two-thirds of Cascabel's costs.
Meanwhile the property was sold, the charge was redeemed and the remaining money was paid into court pending the resolution of the dispute. The counter-claim went to trial where the judge made an order that Cascabel had been fair in claiming its solicitor's costs and these should be paid from the money that was being held in court. A subsequent costs decision also confirmed that Cascabel could recover all the fees and disbursements charged by the new solicitor in respect of the action.
Vedalease appealed but the appeal was dismissed.
For further information email Andrew Brookes or call 020 7940 4000.
