JL Homes Ltd v Mortgage Express & Anor [2013] EWHC 3928 (Ch) (10 December 2013)

JL Homes Ltd v Mortgage Express & Anor [2013] EWHC 3928 (Ch) (10 December 2013)

The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Receivers were validly appointed for arrears and breach of conditions, all statutory and contractual procedures were followed, the mortgagee's powers were lawfully exercised, and the issues had already been litigated and dismissed. The proceedings were an abuse of process and totally without merit.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 3928 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: JL Homes Limited; First Defendant: Mortgage Express; Second Defendant (lpa Receiver): Paul Diakiw; Second Defendant (lpa Receiver): David Heap
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out; Request for Extended Civil Restraint Order
Outcome
Claim dismissed; summary judgment granted to Defendants; alternatively, claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Appointment of LPA Receivers, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Mortgagee Powers, Consolidation of Mortgages, Relitigation, Civil Restraint Orders
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Law Appointment of LPA Receivers Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Mortgagee Powers +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

JL Homes Limited

Claimant

Mortgage Express

First Defendant

Paul Diakiw

Second Defendant (lpa Receiver)

David Heap

Second Defendant (lpa Receiver)

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Application for Summary Judgment And/or Strike Out; Request for Extended Civil Restraint Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appointment of LPA Receivers was valid
  2. 2 Whether the claim disclosed any reasonable cause of action
  3. 3 Whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

The claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action as the Receivers were validly appointed for arrears and breach of conditions, all statutory and contractual procedures were followed, the mortgagee's powers were lawfully exercised, and the issues had already been litigated and dismissed. The proceedings were an abuse of process and totally without merit.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; summary judgment granted to Defendants; alternatively, claim struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for Defendants
  • Claim struck out in its entirety