Empyrean Protocol

Empyrean Intelligence Console

← Back to briefs

Victoria Capital Trust v Emmett [2025] EWHC 1972 (Comm) (30 July 2025)

Source: Open mirrored case · Original bailii.org

Sanctions ✓ Geo ✓

Executive Summary

  • Victoria Capital Trust (VCT) obtained a default judgment of £1,276,033.09 against Anita Emmett (now Bandak) and Aaron Emmett for a debt guaranteed under a 28 June 2021 personal guarantee linked to a £986,250 bridging loan to Corben Mews.
  • Mrs Bandak seeks to set aside the judgment, claiming late awareness of the claim and a realistic defense.
  • The loan was secured by a facility agreement and legal charges over Corben Mews properties; personal guarantees were signed by both defendants.
  • Mrs Bandak held significant control roles in the Click Group companies related to Corben Mews, including directorships and PSC status until mid-2023.
  • The guarantee terms impose strict obligations, including payment on demand and restrictions on disposing of property interests without lender consent.
  • The solicitor’s certificate confirms Mrs Bandak received independent legal advice before signing.

Sanctions Highlights

  • No direct sanctions imposed in this case.
  • However, the text references "sanction" and "sanctions" in relation to compliance and enforcement clauses within the finance documents, indicating potential sensitivity to regulatory frameworks.
  • The case underscores the importance of clear enforcement rights under personal guarantees in complex financial transactions, which may be impacted by sanctions regimes in other contexts.

Emerging Risks

  • Risk of enforcement actions against guarantors who may claim lack of awareness or defense, complicating debt recovery.
  • Potential reputational risk for guarantors involved in multiple corporate roles and personal guarantees.
  • The interplay between personal guarantees and insolvency (notably Aaron Emmett’s bankruptcy) highlights risks in cross-personal and corporate liability.
  • Possible challenges in service and notification procedures, as Mrs Bandak only became aware of the claim post-judgment.

Geopolitical Impact

  • The case involves UK jurisdiction but references Belarus in the broader context of sanctions and geopolitical significance.
  • While Belarus is not a party here, the presence of sanctions implications suggests heightened scrutiny of financial transactions involving entities or persons connected to sanctioned jurisdictions.
  • The case exemplifies how UK courts enforce financial guarantees amid evolving geopolitical sanction landscapes, potentially affecting cross-border lending and enforcement.

Economic Intelligence

  • The loan facility was a bridging finance of nearly £1 million secured against London leasehold properties, reflecting ongoing real estate financing activity.
  • The enforcement of personal guarantees supports lender confidence in property-backed lending.
  • The involvement of multiple corporate entities within the Click Group indicates complex corporate structures used in property finance.
  • The default and subsequent bankruptcy of one guarantor may impact recovery prospects and creditor strategies.

Strategic Recommendations

  • Lenders should ensure robust documentation and independent legal advice for guarantors to mitigate defense claims.
  • Maintain rigorous service and notification protocols to avoid default judgments being set aside.
  • Monitor guarantors’ corporate roles and property interests for compliance with guarantee covenants.
  • Consider geopolitical sanction risks in due diligence, especially involving entities with potential Belarus connections.
  • Prepare for enforcement complexities in cases involving bankrupt guarantors and intertwined corporate groups.

---

**Source Notes:**

Case Title: *Sanctions Intelligence Digest*

Link: https://empyreanprotocol.com/litigation/view/www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2025/1972.txt

Brief metadata