Midland Bank Plc v Pike [1988] 2 All E.R. 434
Charging Order – Locus Standi of a creditor with a charging order
Facts
The Midland Bank Plc were owed a sum of £55,000 by Mr Pike. Midland Bank secured a judgment debt against Mr Pike for this figure, and in order to secure it obtained a charging order over Mr Pike’s matrimonial home, which he owned with his wife as joint tenants. The bank then applied for a sale of the property. This application was denied by a Master in chancery, on the grounds that the bank lacked locus standi to make an application for sale. This was appealed to the High Court.
Issues
Whether the holder of a charging order has an ‘interest’ in land that entitles them to have the necessary standing to apply for a sale of land over which they have a charging order or not.
Decision/Outcome
The holder of a charging order does have sufficient ‘interest’ to apply for a statutory sale of property under s30 Law of Property Act 1925. This is now replaced by s14 Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA) which again allows the holder of a charging order the necessary ‘interest’ to be able to apply for a statutory order for sale. This will allow the holder of a charging order to apply for a sale of the co-owner’s beneficial interest. This was necessary to allow the bank to realise their security for the debt owed by Mr Pike. A charging order would otherwise be useless if it could not be realised. The bank was therefore allowed to proceed and make an application for sale of Mr and Mrs Pike’s property, and this was duly done. The house was ordered to be sold.
Updated 21 March 2026
This case note accurately summarises Midland Bank plc v Pike [1988] 2 All ER 434 and the legal principles it established. The article correctly notes that s.30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 has been replaced by s.14 of the Trusts of Land and Appointment of Trustees Act 1996 (TOLATA 1996), and that a holder of a charging order retains the necessary standing to apply for an order for sale under that provision. This position has been consistently confirmed in subsequent case law, including Putnam & Sons v Taylor [2009] EWHC 317 (Ch) and National Westminster Bank plc v Rushmer [2010] EWHC 554 (Ch). The Charging Orders Act 1979, which governs the obtaining of charging orders, remains in force, though readers should note that Part 4 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 removed the requirement for a two-stage (interim and final) charging order procedure in most cases, streamlining the process. This does not affect the substantive principles discussed in the article. The article remains broadly accurate as a statement of the law on the locus standi of a charging order holder to apply for a sale under TOLATA 1996.
