Watson v Counsell & Anor

Watson v Counsell & Anor

Mr Watson's claims to an overriding interest were without merit as any beneficial interest was subject to the mortgage, and the appeals were either out of time, already refused, or an abuse of process. The alleged new evidence was not material or truly new. Only the issue of the appropriate return on the net proceeds of sale held by the mortgagee had a real prospect of success and permission to appeal was granted on that limited ground, subject to no prior refusal by David Richards J.

Parties
Appellant: Donald Paul Watson; 1st Respondent: Jennifer Anne Counsell; 2nd Respondent: Battersea Park Mortgage Funding Ltd (t/a Kensington Mortgage Company)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (multiple Orders)
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused except on one limited ground
Legal Topics
Overriding Interests, Mortgage Possession, Beneficial Interests, Abuse of Process, New Evidence on Appeal, Trusts of Land, Account of Proceeds of Sale
Property Law Civil Procedure Trusts Mortgages Overriding Interests Mortgage Possession Beneficial Interests Abuse of Process +3 more

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald Paul Watson

Appellant

Jennifer Anne Counsell

1st Respondent

Battersea Park Mortgage Funding Ltd (t/a Kensington Mortgage Company)

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal (multiple Orders)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Watson had an overriding interest in the property taking priority over the mortgagee's charge
  2. 2 Whether new evidence justified reopening the appeals
  3. 3 Whether permission to appeal should be granted out of time

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Watson's claims to an overriding interest were without merit as any beneficial interest was subject to the mortgage, and the appeals were either out of time, already refused, or an abuse of process. The alleged new evidence was not material or truly new. Only the issue of the appropriate return on the net proceeds of sale held by the mortgagee had a real prospect of success and permission to appeal was granted on that limited ground, subject to no prior refusal by David Richards J.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused except on one limited ground

Orders

  • Permission to appeal from the orders of DJ Frenkel and HH Judge Weeks refused.
  • Permission to appeal from the order of DJ Watson refused except as to the return for which the mortgagee must account on the net proceeds of sale, subject to no prior refusal by David Richards J.