Standard Chartered Financial Services Limited v Manchester Outfitters (suiting Division) Limited Now Called King Woolen Mills Limited & 2 others

The Court found that banks routinely make additional advances on the basis of securities already perfected. The findings of the High Court and Court of Appeal reveal two schools of thought: one requiring discharge and fresh perfection, the other accommodating fresh advances within existing securities. With statutory underpinning in the repealed Companies Act and the Companies Act 2015, the question requires conclusive determination by the Supreme Court.

The Court held that the question of recovery is parasitic on the security question because a financial institution can only enforce securities if they are perfected. If the securities are found valid, the Supreme Court will have an opportunity to conclusively determine whether an unsecured borrowing discharges a borrower from the obligation to repay.

Unlike the first two questions, the missing volume 5 of the record did not emanate from the High Court as a contest between parties. However, as the first appellate court has an obligation to reappraise all the evidence, the issue was central to the appeal, arose from the Court of Appeal, and it is not far-fetched that records may disappear or become illegible over time, affecting access to justice generally.

Applying the Steyn guidelines, the Court found the issues transcend the parties' circumstances and bear significantly on the public interest; they raise substantial points of law arising in the courts below and subject of judicial determination; they arise from uncertainty caused by contradictory precedents; they are not actuated by mere apprehension of miscarriage of justice; and they are not mere determinations of fact.