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.| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Law report | London Journal article | ABS59701 (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 89914-1001 |
Browsing London shelves, Shelving location: Journal article Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
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.