Yorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall [electronic resource]
Language: English Publication details: 2008Subject(s):- LIMITATION ACT 1980
- LOWSLEY V FORBES
- YORKSHIRE BANK FINANCE LTD V MULHALL
- ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1956
- CHARGING ORDERS ACT 1979
- DESNOUSSE V NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
- NATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK V ASHE
- POOLE CORPORATION V MOODY
- EDMUNDS V WAUGH
- EZEKIEL V ORAKPO
- GOTHAM V DOODES
- HOLMES V COWCHER
- HUGHES V KELLY
- LAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S195
- England and Wales -- 1543-
- PROPERTY AND LAND LAW-RESIDENTIAL
| Item type | Current library | Call number | Copy number | Status | Barcode | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Book | Virtual Online | ONLINE PUBLICATION (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | 1 | Available | 146361-1001 |
[2008] EWCA Civ 1156, 24 October 2008. Limitation Act 1980 S20(1) did not apply to the enforcement of charging orders. Appellant (M) appealed the charging order obtained against her by respondent bank (Y). M had guaranteed a loan made by Y to a third party, who subsequently defaulted. 16 years later M sought to have the charging order set aside as Y had taken no steps to enforce it. The issue raised was whether the Limitation Act applied so that the charging order could be set aside as unenforceable. Held: appeal dismissed. Despite the lapse of time since the order was made, the Limitation Act did not apply to its enforcement. Even if Parliament had prescribed a time limit in the Act for the bringing of proceedings by a chargee, there was no reason why the proprietor of the land seeking to take the initiative to clear the title could do so without payment of all that was owed. As a result, there was no basis for discharging the order in this case, as Y still enjoyed all the rights of a secured creditor.