Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Agreement with bank to pay debt in part was not supported by any consideration
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, on appeal from the Circuit Court, affirms order granting the respondent bank an order for possession over the appellant defendants' family home, on the grounds that an agreement entered into between the first defendant and a bank official over the telephone to part pay its endowment mortgage debt by way of paying over the encashment value of an endowment insurance policy was unenforceable in law, as it was unsupported by any valuable consideration where no collateral advantage was gained by the bank in circumstances where it was already entitled to the proceeds of the policy at the date of its inception through assignment.
Appeal from Circuit Court - order for possession granted over defendants' family home - endowment mortgage in conjunction with endowment insurance policy - interest only mortgage - value on maturity fell short of capital due on mortgage - agreement entered into between first defendant and bank's representative during telephone conversation regarding full and final settlement of debt - sole point on appeal - whether it is an enforceable agreement as it is alleged not to be supported by any valuable consideration - part payment of debt - collateral advantage did not accrue to bank as it had already been assigned the insurance policy - no defence in law - whether an estoppel arises in equity - unconscionability - no evidence that defendants relied on agreement to their detriment - appeal dismissed
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
