First Mortgage Securities (No 9) Ltd v Smith & Ors [2005] EWHC 2455 (Ch) (29 June 2005)

First Mortgage Securities (No 9) Ltd v Smith & Ors [2005] EWHC 2455 (Ch) (29 June 2005)

Mr Smith cannot set aside the possession orders as there is no evidence of fraud or perjury by FMS; even if the orders were set aside, the sale by FMS to Mr Russell and subsequent sale to Mr and Mrs Bedford conferred good title under the Law of Property Act 1925 and Land Registration Act, leaving Mr Smith with no claim for possession against Mr and Mrs Bedford.

Citation
[2005] EWHC 2455 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: First Mortgage Securities (No 9) Limited; Defendant and Part 20 Claimant: Trevor Alan Smith; Part 20 Defendant: Paul Anthony Bedford; Part 20 Defendant: Caroline Anne Bedford
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 June 2005
Procedural Posture
High Court Chancery Division / Summary Judgment Applications and Default Judgment Application
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of Mr and Mrs Bedford; no order on Mr Smith's application for summary judgment or default judgment against FMS.
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Power of Sale, Land Registration, Summary Judgment, Default Judgment, Fraud in Litigation
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Power of Sale Land Registration Summary Judgment Default Judgment Fraud in Litigation

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Mortgage Securities (No 9) Limited

Claimant

Trevor Alan Smith

Defendant and Part 20 Claimant

Paul Anthony Bedford

Part 20 Defendant

Caroline Anne Bedford

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Chancery Division / Summary Judgment Applications and Default Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Smith can set aside possession orders from 1992 and 1995
  2. 2 Whether Mr Smith can claim possession of the property from Mr and Mrs Bedford
  3. 3 Whether Mr Smith is entitled to summary judgment or default judgment against FMS for damages and setting aside possession orders

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Smith cannot set aside the possession orders as there is no evidence of fraud or perjury by FMS; even if the orders were set aside, the sale by FMS to Mr Russell and subsequent sale to Mr and Mrs Bedford conferred good title under the Law of Property Act 1925 and Land Registration Act, leaving Mr Smith with no claim for possession against Mr and Mrs Bedford.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of Mr and Mrs Bedford; no order on Mr Smith's application for summary judgment or default judgment against FMS.

Orders

  • Mr and Mrs Bedford are granted summary judgment dismissing Mr Smith's claim for possession.
  • Mr Smith's application for summary judgment and default judgment against FMS is refused.