000			02167cad a22003615a 4500
001			L146361
008			090112e20081024xxk f v 000 0 eng d
035			_a(Sirsi) u146361
041	0		_aeng
245	0	0	_aYorkshire Bank Finance Ltd v Mulhall _h[electronic resource]
260			_c2008
520			_a[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.
521			_aAdvanced
590			_aKA
650	2	4	_aLIMITATION ACT 1980
650	2	4	_aLOWSLEY V FORBES
650	2	4	_aYORKSHIRE BANK FINANCE LTD V MULHALL
650	2	4	_aADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE ACT 1956
650	2	4	_aCHARGING ORDERS ACT 1979
650	2	4	_aDESNOUSSE V NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL
650	2	4	_aNATIONAL WESTMINSTER BANK V ASHE
650	2	4	_aPOOLE CORPORATION V MOODY
650	2	4	_aEDMUNDS V WAUGH
650	2	4	_aEZEKIEL V ORAKPO
650	2	4	_aGOTHAM V DOODES
650	2	4	_aHOLMES V COWCHER
650	2	4	_aHUGHES V KELLY
650	2	4	_aLAW OF PROPERTY ACT 1925 S195
651		4	_aEngland and Wales _y1543-
690			_aPROPERTY AND LAND LAW-RESIDENTIAL
856	4	0	_uhttps://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/1156.html _zView the item free of charge online at www.bailii.org...
942			_n0
999			_c109136 _d109136