Paratus AMC Ltd v Fosuhene [2013] EWCA Civ 827 (11 July 2013)

Paratus AMC Ltd v Fosuhene [2013] EWCA Civ 827 (11 July 2013)

There was no evidence that Paratus AMC Limited knew the payments were made by Ms Fosuhene as occupier or tenant, nor any conduct amounting to consent or recognition of her tenancy. Therefore, the tenancy was not binding on Paratus, and Ms Fosuhene had no defence to the possession claim.

Citation
[2013] EWCA Civ 827
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Paratus AMC Limited; Second Defendant/appellant: Doe Fosuhene
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Possession Proceedings, Tenancy Created in Breach of Mortgage, Mortgagee's Rights Against Occupier, Estoppel and Waiver by Mortgagee, Summary Judgment/strike Out
Property Law Landlord and Tenant Law Mortgage Law Possession Proceedings Tenancy Created in Breach of Mortgage Mortgagee's Rights Against Occupier Estoppel and Waiver by Mortgagee Summary Judgment/strike Out

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

Parties

Paratus AMC Limited

Claimant/respondent

Doe Fosuhene

Second Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Paratus AMC Limited, as mortgagee, is bound by a tenancy granted without its consent and after registration of its legal charge
  2. 2 Whether Paratus, by accepting payments from Ms Fosuhene, waived its right to treat her as a trespasser or is estopped from denying her tenancy
  3. 3 Whether Ms Fosuhene acquired an equitable right to remain in the property

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that Paratus AMC Limited knew the payments were made by Ms Fosuhene as occupier or tenant, nor any conduct amounting to consent or recognition of her tenancy. Therefore, the tenancy was not binding on Paratus, and Ms Fosuhene had no defence to the possession claim.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to enforce possession orders granted
  • Costs of the appeal awarded to respondent, assessed at £10,000