Image from Google Jackets

Shewu, Shewu and Richmond Upon Thames LB v Hackney LB

Language: English Series: Property and Compensation Reports ; [1998] 76 P&CR 374-381(8)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: "Shewu, Shewu and Richmond Upon Thames LB v Hackney LB" LT 27 March 1998. The claimants held a freehold interest in a house which was subject to a legal charge between themselves as mortgagors and Richmond LB as mortgagees. The house was subject to a compulsory purchase in respect of which notice to treat was served in 1987 and again in 1996. The claimants vacated the property in 1987. The mortgage had not been redeemed by the date of this hearing and there were substantial arrears of principal and interest. The outstanding issue was whether the LT had jurisdiction to determine the date when the mortgage should have been redeemed by the acquiring authority in pursuance of the compulsory purchase. It was agreed that the mortgage debt outstanding was less than agreed compensation. The first claimants contended that owing to the delay in the redemption of the mortgage they would not be entitled to as large a compensation payment. Held; LT was entitled to determine compensatio
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59285 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 88834-1001

"Shewu, Shewu and Richmond Upon Thames LB v Hackney LB" LT 27 March 1998. The claimants held a freehold interest in a house which was subject to a legal charge between themselves as mortgagors and Richmond LB as mortgagees. The house was subject to a compulsory purchase in respect of which notice to treat was served in 1987 and again in 1996. The claimants vacated the property in 1987. The mortgage had not been redeemed by the date of this hearing and there were substantial arrears of principal and interest. The outstanding issue was whether the LT had jurisdiction to determine the date when the mortgage should have been redeemed by the acquiring authority in pursuance of the compulsory purchase. It was agreed that the mortgage debt outstanding was less than agreed compensation. The first claimants contended that owing to the delay in the redemption of the mortgage they would not be entitled to as large a compensation payment. Held; LT was entitled to determine compensatio