Barclays Bank Plc v Alcorn & Anor. [2002] EWHC 492 (Ch) (11 March 2002)

Barclays Bank Plc v Alcorn & Anor. [2002] EWHC 492 (Ch) (11 March 2002)

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish a likelihood that the sums due under the mortgage would be paid within a reasonable period if a stay was granted, and s.36 does not permit a stay in relation to part only of the property. The statutory scheme is proportionate and compliant with Article...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 492 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Barclays Bank PLC; First Defendant: William Henry Alcorn; Second Defendant/appellant: Elizabeth Ann Alcorn
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Stay Execution of Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession Proceedings, Stay of Execution, Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970, Article 8 ECHR, Costs, Valuation of Property
Property Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Mortgage Possession Proceedings Stay of Execution Section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 Article 8 ECHR Costs +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barclays Bank PLC

Claimant/respondent

William Henry Alcorn

First Defendant

Elizabeth Ann Alcorn

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Refusal to Stay Execution of Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should stay execution of a possession order under s.36 Administration of Justice Act 1970
  2. 2 Whether s.36 allows a stay in relation to part only of the mortgaged property
  3. 3 Whether the mortgagor is likely to be able to pay sums due under the mortgage within a reasonable period

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the evidence did not establish a likelihood that the sums due under the mortgage would be paid within a reasonable period if a stay was granted, and s.36 does not permit a stay in relation to part only of the property. The statutory scheme is proportionate and compliant with Article 8 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission granted to reissue the warrant of possession, not to be executed for 28 days from the date of judgment.
  • Order that the defendants pay the claimant's costs of the appeal, to be assessed on the contractual basis and added to the security.