Portman Building Society v Dusangh & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 142 (19 April 2000)

Portman Building Society v Dusangh & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 142 (19 April 2000)

The transaction was not unconscionable as there was no morally reprehensible conduct by the son or the building society, the appellant received independent legal advice, and the building society had no constructive notice of any impropriety. The transaction, though improvident, did not shock the conscience of the court and did not meet the threshold for equitable intervention.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 142
Parties
Claimant: Portman Building Society; First Defendant/appellant: Mr Dusangh Senior; Second Defendant: Mrs Dusangh; Third Defendant: Mr Dusangh Junior
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unconscionable Bargain, Undue Influence, Constructive Notice, Legal Mortgage, Repossession
Equity Contract Law Property Law Unconscionable Bargain Undue Influence Constructive Notice Legal Mortgage Repossession

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Portman Building Society

Claimant

Mr Dusangh Senior

First Defendant/appellant

Mrs Dusangh

Second Defendant

Mr Dusangh Junior

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mortgage transaction constituted an unconscionable bargain
  2. 2 Whether Portman Building Society had constructive notice of any impropriety or undue influence
  3. 3 Whether the transaction should be set aside against the building society

Ratio Decidendi

The transaction was not unconscionable as there was no morally reprehensible conduct by the son or the building society, the appellant received independent legal advice, and the building society had no constructive notice of any impropriety. The transaction, though improvident, did not shock the conscience of the court and did not meet the threshold for equitable intervention.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Declaration of entitlement to a charge by way of legal mortgage over the property to Portman Building Society
  • Order for possession of the property to Portman Building Society