Selwyn Campbell v Chief Land Registrar
[2023] EWHC 3087 (Ch)
Mortgage Five Zero Limited v The Secretary of State for Business and Trade
25 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2654 (Ch)
High Court
A company was shut down for giving bad legal advice. The company's boss kept trying to fight the decision in court but failed, and now he can't go to court for three years.
Key Facts
- •Mortgage Five Zero Limited (Mortgage Five Zero) offered non-regulated legal services based on a flawed interpretation of s.2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989.
- •The company's services claimed that mortgage deeds were routinely deficient and ineffective due to a lack of mortgagee signature.
- •The Secretary of State for Business and Trade (SoS) petitioned to wind up Mortgage Five Zero on public interest grounds.
- •Deputy ICCJ Agnello made a winding-up order on April 4, 2023.
- •Jason Campbell, sole director and 50% shareholder, initiated numerous appeals and applications challenging the winding-up order.
- •Multiple applications were made for stays, adjournments, and referral to the Court of Appeal.
Legal Principles
Section 2 of the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 applies only to contracts for the future sale or disposition of interests in land, not to documents creating or transferring such interests.
Helden v. Strathmore Limited [2011] EWCA Civ. 542
A company director has limited authority post winding-up order; primarily to appeal the order, but not to initiate new claims.
Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v. RCMA Asia Pte Ltd [2021] SGCA 60
An ECRO can be made against a party who persistently issues claims or applications that are totally without merit.
Practice Direction 3C, para. 3.1
In determining who is the 'real' party for purposes of an ECRO, the court considers who is actually responsible for the application and who benefits.
CFC 26 Ltd v. Brown Shipley & Co Ltd [2017] 1 WLR 4589
Outcomes
Appeal against the winding-up order dismissed.
The appeal lacked merit; the company's argument was based on a misinterpretation of established case law.
All other outstanding applications by Mortgage Five Zero dismissed.
The applications were based on the same flawed legal argument and lacked merit.
Extended Civil Restraint Order (ECRO) made against Jason Campbell for three years.
Campbell persistently issued claims and applications that were totally without merit and he was the 'real' party behind them.
Costs awarded to SoS and OR against Jason Campbell.
SoS and OR were successful in their application for ECRO