Image from Google Jackets

Lloyds Bank plc v Hawkins

Language: English Series: Estates Gazette ; [1998] 47 EG 137-139(3)Publication details: 1998Subject(s): Summary: CA 12 August 1998. Hawkins (H) executed an all moneys charge of his freehold property in 1982 in favour of Lloyds Bank (L). In 1987 H executed a guarantee also in favour of L in respect of a company, Graficas Ltd (G). H and G got into financial difficulty, and in 1995 L demanded payment from H in respect of sums advanced to him and a sum due under the guarantee by reason of G`s default. Proceedings were commenced in the county court and L obtained judgement for possession of the freehold property and a money judgement for the `amount outstanding under the mortgage`. The property was sold and the judgement satisfied. L then issued High Court proccedings against L claiming the sum due under the guarantee as an unsecured liability. It was held that L`s cause of action had merged with the earlier county court judgement and there was estoppel "per rem judicatam". An appeal by L was dismissed.
Holdings
Item type Current library Call number Copy number Status Barcode
Law report London Journal article ABS59701 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) 1 Available 89914-1001

CA 12 August 1998. Hawkins (H) executed an all moneys charge of his freehold property in 1982 in favour of Lloyds Bank (L). In 1987 H executed a guarantee also in favour of L in respect of a company, Graficas Ltd (G). H and G got into financial difficulty, and in 1995 L demanded payment from H in respect of sums advanced to him and a sum due under the guarantee by reason of G`s default. Proceedings were commenced in the county court and L obtained judgement for possession of the freehold property and a money judgement for the `amount outstanding under the mortgage`. The property was sold and the judgement satisfied. L then issued High Court proccedings against L claiming the sum due under the guarantee as an unsecured liability. It was held that L`s cause of action had merged with the earlier county court judgement and there was estoppel "per rem judicatam". An appeal by L was dismissed.