The appellant challenged a mortgagee’s possession order saying that the loan agreements sought to be enforced were invalid and the charges unenforceable. The loan had been in two parts. She said that as a multi-part agreement it fell within section 18.
Held: The court considered the authorities including an article by Mr Bennion on the issue and concluded ‘the reference in section 18 to ‘categories’ in subsection 1(b) is a reference to mutually exclusive categories, and not to cases where one of the 2 (or more) categories is a direct or indirect subdivision of the other or others.’ The loan was not a multiple agreement within section 18 and was enforceable. The appeal failed.
Purle QC J
 EWHC 103 (Ch),  5 EG 107,  2 All ER (Comm) 687,  Bus LR 984,  NPC 20
England and Wales
Cited – Sayers v Clarke Walker (A firm) CA 14-May-2002
In a case of any complexity, when an appeal court considered an application for leave to appeal which was filed out of time, it should have in mind the matters listed in the rules. It was not appropriate to use judge made checklists where one was . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent lender of its . .
Cited – Watchtower Investments Ltd v Payne and Another CA 20-Jul-2001
The mortgagor borrowed funds against the charge, and part of the condition of the loan was that any arrears on the first charge must be discharged. The total amount of the loan was calculated to include sufficient to discharge the arrears on the . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – National Westminster Bank Plc v Story and Another CA 7-May-1999
The court asked whether a series of smaller loans were governed by the 1974 Act. Three facilities had been provided under one loan agreement. 2 loans were held to be for unrestricted-use credit.
Held: Three credit agreements separately signed, . .
Cited – The National Home Loans Corporation v HannahRahman 1997
The borrower had first borrowed money on mortgage (the 1989 loan) to pay off an existing third party mortgage (as well as raising additional funds) and later paid off the new mortgage as part of the process of substituting that mortgage for a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 February 2022; Ref: scu.280255