June 1, 2020

May 30, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

May 29, 2020

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Court guidance on whether “first past the post” is really a legal principle

The Commercial Court has recently handed down its judgment in the case of Midtown Acquisitions LP v Essar Global Fund Limited and Others [2018] EWHC 789. The decision provides useful guidance on whether “first past the post” is really a legal principle when it comes to charging orders.

Background Facts

Two creditors, Midtown Acquisitions LP (“M”) and ICICI Bank Limited (“ICICI”) had lent funds to the debtor (Essar Steel Minnesota LLC) in respect of the same project, guaranteed by the defendant (Essar Global Fund – “Essar”) under loan agreements.

M secured a US judgment against Essar in respect of those funds on 25 August 2016, which it then used to obtain a summary judgment totalling USD 171 million, from the English Commercial Court on 17 March 2017.   M then obtained an interim charging order on 11 September 2017 and on 16 January 2018, appeared before Mr Justice Robin Knowles CBE in order to seek a final charging order.

ICICI followed a similar path, however, was slightly behind M, with ICICI commencing proceedings in the US on 2 September 2016 and obtaining a US judgment on 27 April 2017. The US judgment was used to obtain a summary judgment (also in the Commercial Court) on 10 November 2017, in the sum of USD 588 million. ICICI then filed a charging order application on 28 November 2017 and obtained its interim charging order on 20 December 2017.   ICICI was also seeking a final charging order at the hearing on 16 January 2018.

It is important to point out that whilst Essar’s solvency was clearly debatable (given the sums owed to M and to ICICI), insolvency proceedings were not in contemplation at the time of the Commercial Court hearing and Essar did not oppose either M or ICICI’s request for final charging orders.   The issue in question was the fact that ICICI considered that its charging order should rank equally to that of M, irrespective of the fact that its interim charging order was granted some three months’ after M’s interim charging order.


 Neither M nor ICICI was seeking equality of all creditors.   The judgment refers to the clear “objective” of both M and ICICI to “obtain priority over the general body of unsecured creditors of Essar”.

Counsel for M sought to rely upon the “first past the post” rule – which was relied upon in British Arab Commercial Bank plc v Ahmad Hamad Algosaibi and Brothers Coin 2011. It was submitted that “first past the post” was a “default rule” which had been around some time. However, Counsel for ICICI pointed out that Lord Goddard in James Bibby Ltd v Woods & Howard (1949) expressed himself “not in language of articulating a principle, but rather in language of observation of what can happen”.

Mr Justice Knowles in the present case had regard to the fact that precedent (particularly Mr Justice Flaux in the British Arab Commercial Bank case referred to above), made it clear that “first past the post” was the type of “rule” to which there would be exceptions and indeed, Counsel for M did accept that it was not an absolute principle.


 Mr Justice Knowles therefore decided that the “rule” could be taken into account, however, what was important was to achieve an equitable outcome having regard to all the circumstances of the case. He referred in his judgment to the fact that The Charging Orders Act 1979 itself sets out that “all the circumstances” must be considered before the making of a charging order.

Other factors considered by Mr Justice Knowles were:

  • That both M and ICICI are significant commercial parties – i.e. equally able to look out for their own commercial interests;
  • M secured its interim charging order first and this is not a case where the debtor (Essar) did anything to “engineer” that outcome;
  • ICICI was not seeking equality of all creditors – simply, equality of itself and M;
  • The material in the case suggests that Essar sought to delay M – a factor to be considered in circumstances where M was procedurally ahead of ICICI in terms of the Court process.

In weighing up his conclusion, Mr Justice Knowles states that it is not “inequitable to prefer one diligent party over another diligent party, if in all the circumstances that seems appropriate”.   After balancing all of the factors, it was decided that M’s charging order would rank above ICICI’s in order of priority.   As such, in this case, the party that was “first past the post” is the party who enjoys priority.


The important message from this judgment is that “first past the post” cannot be relied upon as a principle where final charging orders are being sought.   However, a party can have some confidence that if all other circumstances are equal/equitable, being the first to have been granted an interim charging order could afford that party the benefit of priority when a final charging order is sought.   As such, the underlying message is not to unduly delay in getting on with the court process in circumstances where a decision has been made to seek the award of a charging order.

© Copyright 2020 Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP


About this Author

Garon Anthony, Squire Patton Boggs, litigation attorney

Garon Anthony is a partner in the Litigation Practice Group. He has specialised in dispute resolution work since he qualified as a solicitor and has considerable experience in general corporate and commercial litigation work, acting for both private and public sector clients.

Garon regularly resolves disputes for clients in the financial services/insurance sector. That encompasses professional negligence, fraud issues/recovery processes, dealing with claims and complaints by customers of the mis-selling of retail products, handling insurance policy coverage disputes for corporate...

44 121 222 3507
Helen Cain, Squire Patton Boggs Law Firm, Litigation Attorney, Birmingham, United Kindgom

Helen joined the Litigation team in 2014, having completed her training with the firm. Helen has a broad range of experience in general commercial litigation, pensions disputes and financial services litigation.

She has experience in advising on a wide range of matters of both a contractual and tortious nature, including breach of contract, misrepresentation, debt recovery and professional negligence.

Helen regularly acts for a diverse client base including PLCs, SMEs and individuals. Helen also has experience of acting for pension trustees and representative beneficiaries in professional negligence claims and rectification proceedings.

Helen completed a secondment at Clearwater Corporate Finance, working with the deal origination team. Helen has also spent time in the firm’s Intellectual Property & Technology Practice Group, Real Estate Practice Group and Litigation (Real Estate and Property Litigation) Practice Group.

Helen is a member of the Association of Pension Lawyers.


  • Advising a leading retail bank in relation to a variety of consumer disputes including a large number of claims for mis-selling of payment protection insurance and investment products.
  • Acting for a leading retail bank in respect of a large number of Part 8 costs only claims.
  • Facilitating enforcement action against individuals.
  • Acting for a large specialty jeweler in respect of specific performance and breach of contract claims.
  • Assisting in advising an individual in respect of a complex part 20 claim regarding the unlawful diversion of funds.
  • Acting for a Residents Action Group in respect of a private nuisance claim.


  • BPP Law School, L.P.C., 2012
  • College of Law, Postgraduate Diploma in Law, 2011
  • University of Birmingham, B.A., 2010


  • England and Wales, 2014


+44 121 222 3309