Barclays Bank plc v Alcorn: ChD 2002

Hart J said: ‘It seems to me however, that her general submission on the effect of the Human Rights Act in relationship to a mortgagee’s action for possession is correct, namely, that the matter is regulated by section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 in a way which draws a balance which Parliament was entitled to draw between the interests of occupants of dwelling houses and the interests of mortgagees, and does so in a manner which is proportionate and reasonable, and allows the court, in the exercise of its discretion, to apply criteria of reasonableness and proportionality in either granting or denying the mortgagee its remedy.’

Hart J
[2002] EWHC 498 (Ch)
Administration of Justice Act 1970
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal fromBarlcays Bank Plc v Alcorn CA 17-May-2002
Renewed application for leave to appeal. . .
CitedHorsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark and Another ChD 8-Oct-2008
The court was asked whether section 101 of the 1925 Act infringes the Convention rights of residential mortgagors by allowing mortgagees to overreach the mortgagor by selling the property out of court, without first obtaining a court order either . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Human Rights, Land

Updated: 18 December 2021; Ref: scu.276785