||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 267 (Jan)
|| EWHC 103 (Ch)
||Chancery Division, Birmingham District Registry
Judge Purle QC sitting as a judge of the high court
||Bradley Say (instructed by Burton & Co LLP) appeared for the claimant.
||Clifford Payton (instructed by Glenisters) appeared for the defendant.
||29 January 2009
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
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.
- An Official transcript is the final version of the judgment prepared by shorthand writers. LexisLibrary contains all judgments from the High Court and aboveView Judgment
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports