A house was bought in the name of one partner in an unmarried couple. It was subject to a mortgage, and the non-owner contributed a capital sum. The landowner later remortgaged for a larger sum, but without the partner’s consent. The landowner then left without making repayments, and the lender sought possession.
Held: The charge ranked ahead of any interest of the non-owner, and an order for possession was made. It ranked ahead however only to the extent of the original mortgage.
References:  1 WLR 137,  1 All ER 909
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Applied – Bristol and West Building Society v Henning CA 2-Apr-1985
( CLY 2950,  2 All ER 606, ,  EWCA Civ 6,  1 WLR 778)
- Applied – Grant v Edwards and Edwards CA 24-Mar-1986
A couple were not married but lived together in Vincent Farmhouse in which the plaintiff claimed a beneficial interest on separation. The female partner was told by the male partner that the only reason for not acquiring the property in joint names . .
( 1 Ch 638,  2 All ER 426, ,  3 WLR 114,  EWCA Civ 4,  Fam Law 300,  1 FLR 87)
This case is cited by:
- Applied – Locabail (UK) Ltd and Another v Waldorf Investment Corporation and Others ChD 31-Mar-1999
A consent to a mortgage on a property, allowed a bank to substitute a second charge for the first, without the owners consent, but this was limited to the extent and value of the first charge. There was no argument to limit the effect of the second . .
(Times 31-Mar-99, Gazette 19-May-99)
- Cited – Castle Phillips Finance v Piddington CA 1995
The wife charged the matrimonial home to Lloyds to secure the husband’s indebtedness. The husband subsequently agreed with Barclays for the indebtedness to be refinanced. The husband and an accomplice forged her signature on a transfer of the . .
( 1 FLR 783)
These lists may be incomplete.
Last Update: 26 November 2020; Ref: scu.180909