What the Tenn Capital judgment signals for bridging finance documentation and recoveries

A procedural decision with wider financing implications

As reported by Bridging Loan Directory, the High Court has struck out all claims brought by borrower Oisin Fanning against Tenn Capital in connection with a £6.3m loan secured against a flat in Grosvenor Square, London. The judgment is relevant to the bridging market because it illustrates how earlier settlements, contractual agency provisions and evidence of lender conduct can shape later recovery disputes.

It is equally important to be precise about what the decision did not establish. The court did not determine whether the loan was a regulated mortgage contract, nor whether the receivers sold the property at an undervalue. Instead, the regulated-mortgage claims were struck out as an abuse of process following an earlier settlement, while the claim relating to the receivers lacked sufficient particulars or evidence to make Tenn responsible.

Settlement terms can materially affect future claims

Tenn advanced the loan in November 2022, with security over Fanning’s freehold interest in the Garden Flat at 48 Grosvenor Square. Following default in February 2023, receivers were appointed under the charge. Fanning then challenged the enforceability of the loan and security, but those proceedings were settled through a consent order dated 17 October 2023.

According to Bridging Loan Directory, the original claim was dismissed, the consent order recorded an agreement not to advance the claims in other proceedings against Tenn, and Fanning was ordered to pay £100,000 in costs. The judge found that the borrower’s assertion that the property was his residence had already formed part of that dispute. The proposed Financial Services and Markets Act argument had also been identified before settlement.

For borrowers, investors and developers, the practical point is that settling a dispute is not simply a pause in proceedings. The scope of the release, the claims being discontinued and any restrictions on future proceedings require close attention. Issues concerning use, occupation, enforceability or regulatory status should be identified and addressed before a settlement is concluded.

Receiver independence remains a critical distinction

The borrower also sought to hold Tenn responsible for an alleged failure by the receivers to market the property properly and for an alleged sale at an undervalue. The court noted that the receivers acted as agents of the borrower rather than the lender, as expressly stated in the charge.

The claim did not contain sufficient particulars or evidence that Tenn had controlled or influenced the sale. This distinction matters for lenders managing enforcement. Clear appointment documents and disciplined separation between the lender’s recovery decisions and the receiver’s conduct can become central if a disposal is later challenged.

For borrowers, alleging that a lender controlled a receiver requires a properly evidenced basis. Dissatisfaction with the sale process or outcome will not, by itself, establish lender responsibility where the contractual documents state that the receiver acts as the borrower’s agent.

Exit risk should be assessed beyond the headline valuation

The receivers sold the property in May 2025. Bridging Loan Directory reports that the proceeds did not cover the outstanding indebtedness and that a £4.5m shortfall was demanded from Fanning. While the judgment does not provide a basis for broader conclusions about London values or bridging performance, the outcome underlines the importance of testing the downside case at the outset.

• Borrowers should understand the full recourse position if sale proceeds are insufficient.

• Exit plans should consider timing, disposal execution and the effect of an enforcement process.

• Lenders should maintain clear records around underwriting, default, receiver appointments and communications during a sale.

• All parties should identify potential regulatory and occupancy issues before completion rather than after default.

What this means for the bridging market

The judgment supports confidence that clearly documented settlements can provide finality, but it should not be read as a ruling on the underlying regulated-mortgage or undervalue questions. Its significance lies in process: claims must be raised at the appropriate time, pleaded coherently and supported by evidence.

For financing transactions, legal structure and recovery planning are not secondary considerations. They form part of credit assessment alongside the asset, borrower and proposed exit. A well-prepared funding process should therefore examine security terms, property use, potential regulatory treatment and enforcement outcomes before capital is committed.