Skip to main content
Facilitate Magazine: Informing Workplace and Facilities Management Professionals - return to the homepage Facilitate magazine logo
  • Search
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on Facebook
  • Visit Facilitate Magazine on LinkedIn
  • Visit @Facilitate_Mag on Twitter
Visit the website of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management Logo of the Institute of Workplace and Facilities Management

Main navigation

  • Home
  • News
    • Comment
    • People
    • Reports
    • Research
  • Features
    • Analysis
    • Features
    • Round Tables
    • Webinars
  • Outsourcing
    • Contract Finder
    • Contracts
    • FM Business Models
    • Interviews
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Opinion
    • Procurement
    • Trends
  • Know-How
    • Explainers
    • Legal Updates
    • White Papers
  • Jobs
  • Topics
    • Workplace Services
      • Hospitality
      • Catering
      • Cleaning
      • Front of House
      • Grounds Maintenance
      • Helpdesk
      • Mailroom
      • Manned Guarding / Security
      • Pest Control
      • Washroom Services
      • Disaster Recovery
      • Specialist Services
    • Professional Performance
      • Behavioural Change
      • Continual Professional Development
      • Education
      • Management
      • Recruitment
      • Training
    • Workplace Performance
      • Benchmarking
      • Health & Wellbeing
      • Operational Readiness
      • Procurement
      • Security
      • Workplace User Experience
      • Workplace Culture
    • Compliance
      • Health & Safety
      • Risk & Business Continuity
      • Standards
      • Statutory Compliance
    • Building Services
      • Architecture & Construction
      • Asset Management
      • Building Controls
      • Building Fabric
      • Drinking Water
      • Fire Protection
      • HVAC
      • Landscaping
      • Mechanical & Electrical
      • Building Security
      • Water, Drainage & Plumbing
    • Technology
      • Building Information Modelling
      • CAFM
      • Data & Networks
      • Document Management
      • Information Management
      • Internet of Things (IoT)
      • Software & Systems
    • Energy management
      • Energy Management Systems
      • Electricity
      • Gas
      • Solar
      • Wind
    • Sustainability
      • Environmental Quality
      • Social Value
      • Waste Management
      • Recycling
    • Workspace Design
      • Agile Working
      • Fit-Out & Refurbishment
      • Inclusive Access
      • Lighting
      • Office Interiors
      • Signage
      • Space Planning
      • Storage
      • Vehicle Management / Parking
      • Washroom
    • Sectors
      • Corporate Office
      • Education
      • Healthcare
      • Manufacturing
      • International
      • Retail
      • Sports & Leisure
      • Regions
  • Buyers' Guide
Quick links:
  • Home
  • Topics
Know How
Legal Updates
Compliance
Sustainability

Court Report: Mortgage monies and statutory power of sale

Open-access content Wednesday 15th August 2012 — updated 1.53pm, Tuesday 5th May 2020
Beverley Vara writes about a recent case, in which the Court of Appeal considered the implications of a failure to include a variation to the statutory power of sale.
16 August 2012

The issue
Under Section 101 of the Law of Property Act 1925, a lender protecting mortgage monies by way of charge by legal mortgage enjoys a statutory power of sale over the property securing the debt in order to recover the monies.

Such power arises automatically and can be varied, extended or excluded by express wording in the mortgage deed. In the absence of any such exclusion, modification or extension, the power of sale will arise when the mortgage monies fall due in accordance with agreed repayment terms.

The purchaser of a charged property from a chargee pursuant to the statutory power of sale is not obliged to enquire whether the power of sale was properly exercised.
In a recent case, the Court of Appeal considered the implications of a failure to include a variation to the statutory power of sale within the mortgage deed.


Background

Landmain Ltd (Landmain) is the registered proprietor of premises in London (the premises). Dancastle Associates Ltd (the mortgagee) provided a six-month bridging facility of £635,000 to Landmain pursuant to a facility agreement dated 30 July 2010. On the same date it executed a standard form charge over the premises.

The facility agreement purported to extend the statutory power of sale such that it was exercisable immediately upon execution of the charge. The charge did not contain this wording but was still registered at HM Land Registry. The facility agreement was not registered.

In December 2010, the mortgagee notified Landmain of its intention to exercise its power of sale over the Premises. Despite Landmain disputing this on the grounds of no default, the mortgagee sold the property to Cherry Tree Investments Ltd (the purchaser) in 2011.

The purchaser was subsequently unable to register its transfer at HM Land Registry and issued proceedings.

Appeal

At first instance, the judge found for the purchaser. Landmain appealed, arguing that the first instance judge was mistaken and that it should remain the registered proprietor.

Where, as here, the document under scrutiny was registered on a public register open to inspection by third parties, extrinsic evidence such as the facility agreement should be inadmissible.

The judge was therefore not entitled to have interpreted the charge as incorporating the terms of the facility agreement. According to the charge alone, the statutory power of sale existed unmodified such that an event of default on Landmain's part would be required before the mortgagee could exercise the power of sale.

Landmain also argued that the court was not entitled to correct the parties' mistake by contractual construction. The error related not to the language used in the charge, a necessary condition for construction, but instead the legal requirements of a charge.

Response

The purchaser responded, arguing that the first instance judgment was correct.

The facility agreement and the charge had been executed as part of a single transaction and the first instance judge was right to have read them together so as to incorporate the modified power of sale wording.

The fact that HM Land Registry was open to members of the public was irrelevant as the charge was only enforceable as between the two parties to it, who each knew both of the existence of the facility agreement and of its terms and intention.

With regards to the court's powers of interpretation, the purchaser argued that the parties had mistakenly failed to include the variation of the statutory power of sale into the charge, and that the court was permitted to correct this. In the alternative, the purchaser argued that the facility agreement and the charge should be viewed as a single document.

Decision

By a majority decision, the Court of Appeal upheld Landmain's appeal ruling that the statutory power of sale applied unamended and that Landmain remained the registered proprietor.

The public nature of the charge meant that extrinsic background evidence had a limited part to play. While the facility agreement was admissible as evidence, it would not affect the interpretation of the charge, which was a public document registered on a public register.

Third parties inspecting the charge were entitled to rely on it as drafted without any need to refer to any collateral document. Contractual construction was therefore inappropriate for mistakes in such documents.

The court did acknowledge that the purchaser could plead a claim for rectification (which it had not done in these proceedings).

Conclusion

  • This case is the first in which the courts have been asked to decide upon the admissibility of background evidence to help interpret a public document where a collateral document has not been made public
  • The question has generated discussion at high levels, the Court of Appeal having overturned a first instance High Court judgment with a majority, not unanimous, decision
  • Lenders should ensure the terms of a mortgage deed, and standard form charges, accurately reflect their agreement so as to protect their interests.

Beverley Vara is a partner and head of real estate litigation at solicitors Allen & Overy LLP



Also filed in:
Topics
Know How
Content
Legal Updates
Compliance
Sustainability

You might also like...

Share
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • Linked in
  • Mail
  • Print

Today's top reads

 

Latest Jobs

Project Leader (Maternity Cover One Year Contract)

Cambridge
Circa £50,000 Pro Rata + Benefits & Opportunities
Reference
56378

Maintenance Supervisor

Surrey
Up to £43,000 + Excellent Package & Opportunities
Reference
56376

Regional Facilities Manager

South West England
Circa £40,000 + Benefits & Opportunities
Reference
56375
See all jobs »

 

 

Sign up to our newsletter

News, jobs and updates

Sign up

Subscribe to print

Sign up to receive our bi-monthly magazine

Subscribe
Facilitate magazine cover, June 2020
​
FOLLOW US
@Facilitate_Mag
Facilitate Magazine
Facilitate Magazine
CONTACT US
Contact us
Tel: 020 7880 6200
​

IWFM

About IWFM
Become a member
Qualifications
Events

Information

Privacy Policy
Terms & Conditions
Cookie Policy
Think Green

Get in touch

Contact us
Advertise with us
Subscribe to Facilitate Magazine
Write for Facilitate Magazine

General

IWFM Jobs
Help

© 2022 • www.facilitatemagazine.com and Facilitate Magazine are published by Redactive Media Group. All rights reserved. Reproduction of any part is not allowed without written permission.

Redactive Media Group Ltd, 71-75 Shelton Street, London WC2H 9JQ