Emery & Anor v UCB Corporate Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 675 (30 April 2001)

Emery & Anor v UCB Corporate Services Ltd [2001] EWCA Civ 675 (30 April 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that the conditions for promissory estoppel were not satisfied because there was no clear and unequivocal promise by UCB not to enforce its rights, and the Emerys did not alter their position to their detriment in reliance on any such promise. Therefore, UCB was entitled to demand repayment, appoint receivers, and sell the property. The appointment of receivers was valid, and UCB was not liable for their acts or defaults. The Emerys' claim for damages failed.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 675
Parties
Claimant/respondent: David Emery; Claimant/respondent: Joy Emery; Defendant/appellant: UCB Corporate Services Limited (formerly UCB Bank Plc)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 April 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court, on Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Appeal allowed with costs. Respondents' claim dismissed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.
Legal Topics
Promissory Estoppel, Mortgage Enforcement, Appointment of Receivers, Damages, Breach of Contract
Contract Law Equity Banking Law Promissory Estoppel Mortgage Enforcement Appointment of Receivers Damages Breach of Contract

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Emery

Claimant/respondent

Joy Emery

Claimant/respondent

UCB Corporate Services Limited (formerly UCB Bank Plc)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Chancery Division, High Court, on Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether UCB was estopped by promissory estoppel from enforcing its strict contractual rights under the legal charge
  2. 2 Whether the appointment of receivers by UCB was valid
  3. 3 Whether UCB was liable for acts or defaults of receivers if appointment was invalid

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the conditions for promissory estoppel were not satisfied because there was no clear and unequivocal promise by UCB not to enforce its rights, and the Emerys did not alter their position to their detriment in reliance on any such promise. Therefore, UCB was entitled to demand repayment, appoint receivers, and sell the property. The appointment of receivers was valid, and UCB was not liable for their acts or defaults. The Emerys' claim for damages failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed with costs. Respondents' claim dismissed. Permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.

Orders

  • Set aside the judge's decision on issues 5, 6, 7, 8(b), 9, 10 and 13 and substitute answers in favour of UCB.
  • Judgment for UCB for £328,649.12 stands.