Where a mortgage was taken out by business partners, their liability was joint and several. Partners had taken out a loan, but the terms of the mortgage appeared to make each debtor liable for all sums due from either of them, including for debts to the mortgagee unconnected with the business. Under the clause they had covenanted to pay ‘all sums of money . . advanced to the mortgagor by the bank.’ The term mortgagor meant the two of them and/or each of them. So they had covenanted to pay all sums of money advanced by the bank to the two of them and/or to either of them.
Judges:
Lord Irvine of Lairg, Lord Chancellor, Lord Hutton, Lord Millett, Lord Scott of Foscote and Lord Rodger of Earlsferry
Citations:
Times 17-Dec-2001, Gazette 14-Feb-2002, [2001] UKHL 63, [2002] 1 WLR 94 (HL)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Mallan v May 1844
The court considered the possible consequences of interpretation of a contract: ‘We must apply the ordinary rules of construction to this instrument; and though, by so doing, we may, in some instances, probably in this, defeat the real intention of . .
Cited – Wright v Tennent Caledonian Breweries Ltd IHCS 1991
The court sought to construe a deed of variation of a loan agreement. In the case of two or more individuals, the obligations and conditions affecting the borrower were to be binding on the individuals ‘jointly and severally’. Despite this, one of . .
Cited by:
Cited – Royal Bank of Scotland Plc v Wilson and Another SC 24-Nov-2010
(Scotland) Neighbours had each granted a standard security over their respective properties to the bank. The charge agreements contained personal covenants to repay the sums borrowed on demand. The land-owners appealed against an order for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Land
Updated: 05 June 2022; Ref: scu.167007
