The defendant moved to discharge a certificate of pending litigation registered against his matrimonial home.
The plaintiff bank agreed the certificate should be removed after discovering the alleged fraudulent conveyance had already been reversed, but sought a charging order against the defendant’s interest in the property as a term of discharge.
The court found the bank had a strong prima facie claim under a personal guarantee for corporate debt and that circumstances surrounding property transfers created a real risk the defendant might render himself judgment‑proof.
The court also rejected allegations that the bank had obtained the original certificate through material misrepresentation on the without‑notice motion.
The certificate of pending litigation was discharged but replaced with a limited form of security akin to a Mareva injunction.
