Bank Of Baroda v Rafique & Anor [1996] EWCA Civ 722 (15 October 1996)

The court determined that the interests of all parties would be best served by remitting the unresolved claim for an order for sale to the County Court for prompt determination, alongside related proceedings, rather than immediately removing the stay or proceeding with the appeal.

Source-derived case information.

Citation: [1996] EWCA Civ 722
Parties: Plaintiff: Plaintiffs; Defendant: First Defendant (husband); Defendant: Second Defendant (wife)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 15 October 1996
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Application to Remove Stay Pending Appeal
Outcome: Application to remove stay not granted; case remitted to County Court for determination of order for sale and related proceedings.
Legal Topics: Mortgage Possession, Order for Sale, Stay of Execution, Undue Influence

Property Law Civil Procedure Mortgage Possession Order for Sale Stay of Execution Undue Influence

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1

Parties

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff

First Defendant (husband)

Defendant

Second Defendant (wife)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Remove Stay Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether the stay of execution on a possession order should be removed pending appeal
2 Whether an order for sale under section 30 of the Law of Property Act 1925 should be determined prior to appeal

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Application to remove stay not granted; case remitted to County Court for determination of order for sale and related proceedings.

Orders

Remit to Kingston County Court for determination of order for sale, preferably before Judge Hucker.
Direct County Court to expedite related proceedings by Bradford and Bingley Building Society.

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.