JAMES EDWARD LIDDIMENT v ANDREW WILLIAM HULL

JAMES EDWARD LIDDIMENT v ANDREW WILLIAM HULL

The Deputy Master was entitled to proceed on the minimum admitted debt, found no realistic prospect of repayment within a reasonable period, and properly exercised his discretion under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. There was no error of law or approach warranting appellate interference.

Parties
Claimant/respondent/part 20 Defendant: James Edward Liddiment; Claimant/respondent/part 20 Defendant: Paul James Greenhalgh; Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant: Andrew William Hull; Part 20 Claimant: ABH Management LLP; Part 20 Defendant: Nucleus Property Finance 1 Limited; Part 20 Defendant: Michael Oliver
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 December 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order for Possession
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Exercise of Discretion Under Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970, Appeal Procedure
Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Exercise of Discretion Under Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 Appeal Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Edward Liddiment

Claimant/respondent/part 20 Defendant

Paul James Greenhalgh

Claimant/respondent/part 20 Defendant

Andrew William Hull

Defendant/appellant/part 20 Claimant

ABH Management LLP

Part 20 Claimant

Nucleus Property Finance 1 Limited

Part 20 Defendant

Michael Oliver

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order for Possession

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deputy Master erred in exercising discretion under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether section 36 applies where part of the mortgaged property has been sold
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Master failed to consider relevant finance offers

Ratio Decidendi

The Deputy Master was entitled to proceed on the minimum admitted debt, found no realistic prospect of repayment within a reasonable period, and properly exercised his discretion under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970. There was no error of law or approach warranting appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order in favour of the Receivers stands
  • No adjournment or stay under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970