Barclays Bank v Rowley & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1764 (01 December 2004)

Barclays Bank v Rowley & Anor [2004] EWCA Civ 1764 (01 December 2004)

The application to set aside the order under section 50 was misconceived because the order did not affect the Rowleys' substantive rights, the court was entitled to make the order without notice, and any disputes over accounting or entitlement to proceeds should be pursued through separate proceedings, not by setting aside the order.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 1764
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank; Defendant/applicant: Keith Rowley; Defendant/applicant: Susan Rowley; Interested Party: Halifax plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Order
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgagee Possession Proceedings, Section 50 Law of Property Act 1925, Setting Aside Orders, Notice Requirements, Accounting Between Mortgagor and Mortgagee
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgagee Possession Proceedings Section 50 Law of Property Act 1925 Setting Aside Orders Notice Requirements Accounting Between Mortgagor and Mortgagee

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank

Claimant/respondent

Keith Rowley

Defendant/applicant

Susan Rowley

Defendant/applicant

Halifax plc

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal From High Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order made under section 50 of the Law of Property Act 1925 should be set aside for lack of notice to the Rowleys
  2. 2 Whether the Rowleys' rights against Barclays Bank or Halifax plc were prejudiced by the order
  3. 3 Whether the application to set aside had any prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The application to set aside the order under section 50 was misconceived because the order did not affect the Rowleys' substantive rights, the court was entitled to make the order without notice, and any disputes over accounting or entitlement to proceeds should be pursued through separate proceedings, not by setting aside the order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs