Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks [2004] EWCA Civ 568 (13 May 2004)

Credit & Mercantile Plc v Feliciangela Marks [2004] EWCA Civ 568 (13 May 2004)

The respondent retained the right to possession under the principal charge; the sub-charge did not transfer or suspend this right, either by its terms or by operation of law. The appeal is dismissed as the respondent was entitled to possession.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 568
Parties
Claimant/respondent: CREDIT & MERCANTILE Plc; Defendant/appellant: FELICIANGELA MARKS
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order for Possession in County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Sub Charges, Mortgagee's Right of Possession, Registered Land, Law of Property Act 1925, Land Registration Act 1925
Property Law Land Law Mortgage Law Sub Charges Mortgagee's Right of Possession Registered Land Law of Property Act 1925 Land Registration Act 1925

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CREDIT & MERCANTILE Plc

Claimant/respondent

FELICIANGELA MARKS

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order for Possession in County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the grant of a sub-charge by a mortgagee divest or suspend the mortgagee's right to possession against the mortgagor?
  2. 2 Does the specific sub-charge in this case transfer or suspend the respondent's rights under the principal charge?

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent retained the right to possession under the principal charge; the sub-charge did not transfer or suspend this right, either by its terms or by operation of law. The appeal is dismissed as the respondent was entitled to possession.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant's appeal dismissed
  • Respondent may add costs of appeal to its security; if insufficient, Appellant to pay costs on indemnity basis if not agreed