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.
Borrower duped by spurious legal advice to advance unstateable defence
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court, on appeal from the Circuit Court, grants possession of lands on foot of mortgage suit, on the grounds that: (a) the Circuit Court had jurisdiction in such actions in respect of a principal private residence irrespective of the rateable valuation of the property; and (b) the borrower had not been entitled to assign his mortgage to a third party as he was not entitled to redeem the mortgage, and any purported legal advice he had received to that effect had been utterly misguided and spurious.
Appeal from Circuit Court - order granting possession of property - mortgage suit - civil bill for possession - 2006 mortgage - default since 2011 - action commenced in 2014 - property not family home at time of mortgage - now family home - whether good defence to claim - notice of motion issued by defendant seeking declaratory relief - whether court deprived of jurisdiction - rateable valuation of property - previous authority that Circuit Court had no jurisdiction where property had no rateable valuation - jurisdiction conferred by Section 3 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2013 - property which was the principle private residence of the mortgagor - application to have mortgage assigned to "The People’s Mortgage Protection Vehicle" under s.93 of the 2009 Act - s 93 only applying to persons entitled to redeem mortgage.
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.
