Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd v Mallon & Ors [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch) (27 September 2019)

Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd v Mallon & Ors [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch) (27 September 2019)

The Zamans had no legal or equitable interest in the property; no constructive or resulting trust was pleaded or established; proprietary estoppel could not override the statutory requirement for writing; registration was not mistaken; and no mortgage existed for the Zamans to redeem. Therefore, there was no defence to the claim for possession.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant and Respondent: Kensington Mortgage Company Limited; First Defendant: Mr Cyril Eugene Mallon; Second Defendant and Appellant: Mr Ghulam Mustafa Zaman; Second Defendant and Appellant: Mrs Jamila Zaman; Defendant to Second Defendants' Part 20 Claim (trustee in Bankruptcy of 1st Defendant): Louise Brittain
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Hearing
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to amend grounds granted but substantive appeal failed.
Legal Topics
Constructive Trust, Proprietary Estoppel, Rectification of Land Register, Mortgage by Assignment, Equity of Redemption
Property Law Equity Land Registration Constructive Trust Proprietary Estoppel Rectification of Land Register Mortgage by Assignment Equity of Redemption

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 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kensington Mortgage Company Limited

Claimant and Respondent

Mr Cyril Eugene Mallon

First Defendant

Mr Ghulam Mustafa Zaman

Second Defendant and Appellant

Mrs Jamila Zaman

Second Defendant and Appellant

Louise Brittain

Defendant to Second Defendants' Part 20 Claim (trustee in Bankruptcy of 1st Defendant)

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Permission to Appeal and Substantive Appeal Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a constructive or resulting trust existed in favour of the Zamans
  2. 2 Whether proprietary estoppel could override statutory formalities under s.2 Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989
  3. 3 Whether there was a mistake in registration entitling rectification under Land Registration Act 2002

Ratio Decidendi

The Zamans had no legal or equitable interest in the property; no constructive or resulting trust was pleaded or established; proprietary estoppel could not override the statutory requirement for writing; registration was not mistaken; and no mortgage existed for the Zamans to redeem. Therefore, there was no defence to the claim for possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to amend grounds granted but substantive appeal failed.

Orders

  • Possession order affirmed
  • Costs order affirmed