Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor

Paragon Finance Plc v Pender & Anor

The claimant, as registered proprietor, retained title to sue and enforce the mortgage despite securitisation. The defendants' claims of misrepresentation, breach of implied term, and extortionate credit bargain had no real prospect of success. The possession order was not to be set aside, and the appeal was dismissed.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Claimant: Paragon Finance Plc; Defendant: Richard Joseph Pender; Defendant: Kathleen Pauline Pender
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Application to Set Aside Possession Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Possession, Securitisation, Implied Terms, Misrepresentation, Extortionate Credit Bargain, Civil Procedure
Property Law Contract Law Consumer Credit Mortgage Possession Securitisation Implied Terms Misrepresentation Extortionate Credit Bargain +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 11
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paragon Finance Plc

Claimant

Richard Joseph Pender

Defendant

Kathleen Pauline Pender

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision on Application to Set Aside Possession Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant retained title to sue after securitisation of the mortgage
  2. 2 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation or collateral contract
  3. 3 Whether an implied term limited the claimant's discretion to vary interest rates

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant, as registered proprietor, retained title to sue and enforce the mortgage despite securitisation. The defendants' claims of misrepresentation, breach of implied term, and extortionate credit bargain had no real prospect of success. The possession order was not to be set aside, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused on all substantive grounds
  • Stay of warrant for possession to be lifted, subject to further representations