High Court Rules on Overreaching Property Interests in Insolvency Case

Citation: [2024] EWHC 327 (Ch)
Judgment on


The case of Paul Allen & Anor v Sines Parks Holdings Limited ([2024] EWHC 327 (Ch)) provides an illustration of the complexities involved in insolvency proceedings, particularly those that intersect with property law. This analysis dissects the High Court’s judgement focusing on the application of legal principles related to overreaching property interests, the adequacy of remedies available to the parties, and the eventual granting of interim relief.

Key Facts

The case centers around several companies in administration seeking an interim injunction to prevent Sines Parks Holdings Limited from accessing and developing various plots of land pending resolution of the dispute. The crux of the matter lies in the Transfer and Settlement Agreements entered into between the parties, with the question of whether the subsequent sale of the properties involved led to the overreaching of the respondent’s rights.

Overreaching of Property Interests

Overreaching pertains to situations where the sale of property simultaneously extinguishes third-party interests in the land if certain conditions are met. In this case, the judge scrutinized the Transfer and Settlement Agreements vis-à-vis the subsequent sale arranged by chargee ICG, determining that the sale by ICG overreached the respondent’s interests, assuming the terms of the sale did not intend to transfer the land with encumbrances (Sale Agreement, Clause 10). The legal construction of the Sale Agreement was pivotal, with the judgement explicitly considering principles from cases such as Lyus v Prowsa Developments Ltd and Duke v Robson.

Adequacy of Remedies

The judge evaluated whether damages would serve as an adequate remedy. For the companies in administration, damages were considered inadequate, as the claim aimed to protect their exclusive possession and not merely to seek monetary compensation. Conversely, the judge deemed damages would suffice for the respondent as they would compensate for delay or loss of profit.

Granting Interim Relief

The court applied the “American Cyanamid” guidelines to determine whether to grant interim relief, emphasizing the avoidance of injustice and considering whether damages would be an adequate remedy. In the event that a grant of interim relief could practically resolve the proceedings, principles from Cayne and Another v Global Natural Resources plc were considered. Furthermore, the judge analyzed the sufficiency of the cross-undertaking in damages offered by the applicants, taking into account concerns of the corporate structuring and evidence of financial back-stopping provided by ICG.


After a meticulous examination, the court concluded that:

  1. The claimants established a serious issue to be tried.
  2. The sale agreement did not intend to encumber the freehold title with the respondent’s interests from the Transfer and Settlement Agreements, meaning those interests were overreached.
  3. The 200 Written Statements executed as a result of the Transfer Agreement did not qualify for protection under the Mobile Homes Act 1983 as construed.
  4. Personal contractual rights could not assist the respondent because they could not impose obligations on the companies beyond the duration of their leases.
  5. Interim relief was warranted to maintain the status quo, but the unfortified cross-undertaking in damages required further evidence.

The judge ordered that the interim injunction continue contingent upon clarification of the cross-undertaking’s adequacy.


The High Court’s decision displays a nuanced understanding of property and insolvency law while balancing the demands for justice among the disputing parties. The case underlines the challenges in aligning procedural proprieties with substantive legal doctrines such as overreaching and the tactical use of interim relief in complex commercial disputes. The judgement’s eventual settlement recommendation and the order following the handing down of the judgment signify the court’s preference for a pragmatic solution, emphasizing the need for cooperation in scenarios where the financial stakes and legal complexities are intertwined.

Related Summaries