Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2009] All ER (D) 267 (Jan)
Neutral Citation: [2009] EWHC 103 (Ch)
Court: Chancery Division, Birmingham District Registry
Judge:

Judge Purle QC sitting as a judge of the high court

Representation Bradley Say (instructed by Burton & Co LLP) appeared for the claimant.
  Clifford Payton (instructed by Glenisters) appeared for the defendant.
Judgment Dates: 29 January 2009

Catchwords

Consumer credit - Agreement - Form and content of agreement - Mortgage - Claimant obtaining mortgage from respondent company's predecessor - Respondent obtaining possession orders against claimant in respect of arrears - Claimant seeking to appeal against possession orders on basis that mortgage unenforceable - Claimant arguing mortgage consisting of multiple agreement in two parts which was not properly executed as no complete document signed by claimant - Whether mortgage multiple agreement - Whether mortgage enforceable - s 18

The Case

Consumer credit Agreement. Chancery Division, Birmingham District Registry: The claimant's appeal against possession orders made against her on the basis that the underlying mortgage was unenforceable pursuant to s18 of the was dismissed, the judge ruling that on the basis of the language of s 18 of the 1974 Act, and consideration of the mortgage documents, the mortgage could not be regarded as an agreement in parts. Accordingly, the mortgage had not been a multiple agreement within s 18(1)(a) of the 1974 Act, and was therefore enforceable.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.