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.
Defendants’ attempts to challenge mortgage enforcement rejected as court strikes out defence
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The High Court struck out the defence of defendants who had resisted eviction from a mortgaged property following possession orders obtained by a bank and rejected all claims of fraud, concealment, and improper securitisation of the mortgage loan as unfounded and an abuse of process. The plaintiff’s application for summary judgment was refused as the property had long since been vacated and sold, but the Court ordered that the plaintiff be released from undertakings as to damages relating to prior interim injunctions. The Court held that the transfer of bank business to a successor by operation of law did not require a formal substitution order, confirming that the proceedings were effectively at an end and dismissing all outstanding defences and counterclaims.
mortgage loan enforcement – defence struck out – injunctions – undertakings as to damages – summary judgment – bank business transfer – statutory substitution – possession order – abuse of process – securitisation (true sale – synthetic securitisation) – strike out motion – RSC Order 19 rule 28 – RSC Order 15 rules 13 and 14 – High Court – Central Bank Act 1971 (as amended) – judgment for possession
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.
