Platform Home Loans Ltd v Oyston Shipways Ltd and others
Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; (9813) 28 March 1998, 148-153(6)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 19 December 1997. The plaintiff mortgage lender gave H a `non-status` loan secured on H`s home which H purchased for £375,000. H defaulted and the plaintiff obtained possession and sold the property for £435,000. In proceedings for negligence against the defendants, involving two unconnected firms, Jacob J gave judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of £585,723 holding that the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent. The plaintiff appealed contending that any contributory negligence in making a non-status loan of 70% of the value of the security did not result in `damage` for the purposes of s1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The parties agreed that Jacob J had not calculated the damages and interest, but the defendants cross appealed in relation to the measure of interest to be applied. Held: The plaintiff`s appeal was dismissed and the defendants` cross-appeal allowed.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS58493 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 85322-1001 |
CA 19 December 1997. The plaintiff mortgage lender gave H a `non-status` loan secured on H`s home which H purchased for £375,000. H defaulted and the plaintiff obtained possession and sold the property for £435,000. In proceedings for negligence against the defendants, involving two unconnected firms, Jacob J gave judgment to the plaintiff in the sum of £585,723 holding that the plaintiff had been contributorily negligent. The plaintiff appealed contending that any contributory negligence in making a non-status loan of 70% of the value of the security did not result in `damage` for the purposes of s1 of the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. The parties agreed that Jacob J had not calculated the damages and interest, but the defendants cross appealed in relation to the measure of interest to be applied. Held: The plaintiff`s appeal was dismissed and the defendants` cross-appeal allowed.