Brighton & Hove City Council v Audus

Brighton & Hove City Council v Audus

The substance of the arrangement between Mr Audus and Mr and Mrs Bull was not a loan or security transaction but a family arrangement granting Mr Audus ultimate ownership, subject to Mr and Mrs Bull's right to reside for life. Therefore, equitable mortgage rules do not apply, and Mr Audus' rights under the Supplemental Deed have priority over the Council's statutory charge.

Parties
Claimant: Brighton & Hove City Council; Defendant: Peter Audus
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgages, Equity of Redemption, Priority of Charges, Family Arrangements, Proprietary Estoppel
Property Law Equity Land Registration Mortgages Equity of Redemption Priority of Charges Family Arrangements Proprietary Estoppel

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

Parties

Brighton & Hove City Council

Claimant

Peter Audus

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Nature and extent of rights under lease and charges
  2. 2 Validity of second registered charge as a clog on equity of redemption
  3. 3 Priority between Council's statutory charge and Mr Audus' charges

Ratio Decidendi

The substance of the arrangement between Mr Audus and Mr and Mrs Bull was not a loan or security transaction but a family arrangement granting Mr Audus ultimate ownership, subject to Mr and Mrs Bull's right to reside for life. Therefore, equitable mortgage rules do not apply, and Mr Audus' rights under the Supplemental Deed have priority over the Council's statutory charge.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed