Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan

Last updated

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan
Simpleicons Business line-chart-1.svg
Court Court of Appeal
Decided5 December 1995
Citation(s)[1995] EWCA Civ 11
[1996] 1 WLR 343
Case history
Prior action(s)On appeal from an appeal of the Administrative Court: HHJ O'Malley sitting in the Shaftesbury County Court
Court membership
Judge(s) sittingWaite LJ
Sir John May LJ
Evans LJ
Keywords
Mortgage

Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 WLR 343 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears.

Contents

Under section 36 Administration of Justice Act 1970 (as amended), the lender should, for an owner-occupier mortgage borrower facing temporary income difficulties set a clearly sustainable payment plan based on good evidence assessed such as, if proportionate to its own expected interests, to pay off the arrears over all of the remaining term of the mortgage rather than necessarily the shortest payment plan possible. This will spare the high cost and inconvenience to the borrower of the lender's repeated applications to the court for a final possession order if the arrears continue to accumulate on facts where the court is merely likely spread out further the repayment of the arrears.

The panel of judges unanimously overturned the courts below and rebuked the parties' repeated applications which resulted in a series of court hearings and orders — each imposing more affordable payment plans still within the term of the mortgage. It instead issued an eightfold list of criteria for future court cases to look to in assessing what order they will make in relation to arrears, taking into account expert evidence including factors cited by the Council of Mortgage Lenders; the aim being to avoid either side engaging in frequent applications ("vexatious litigation") or other abuse of judicial process.

Facts

Mrs Norgan borrowed £90,000 repayable each month along with interest over 22 years (i.e. on a repayment mortgage), secured on the family farmhouse. Rates were initially 11+1⁄4% in the 1970s and with the Bank of England base rate fluctuated. When she fell behind, C&G sought possession, and this was stayed on several occasions. As they built up C&G tried again. [1]

Judgment

Waite LJ, 353, ‘the court should take as its starting point the full term of the mortgage and pose at the outset the question: “Would it be possible for the mortgagor to maintain payment-off of the arrears by instalments over that period?”’ The courts would probably need to consider more comprehensive accounts and financial information, but that and accompanying practical difficulties ‘should not however be allowed, in my judgment, to stand in the way of giving effect to the clearly intended scheme of the legislation.’ They had been to court many times and C&G was adding the cost of its proceedings to the bill against Mrs Norgan and her husband, who were struggling along. These will ultimately have to be paid and that shows the disadvantage of multiple and continued applications to court under the Administration of Justice Act 1970 section 36. [1]

One advantage of taking the period most favourable to the mortgagor at the outset is that, if his or her hopes of repayment prove to be ill-founded and the new instalments initially ordered as a condition of suspension are not maintained but themselves fall into arrear, the mortgagee can be heard with justice to say that the mortgagor has had his chance, and that the section 36 powers… should not be employed repeatedly to compel a lending institution which has already suffered interruption of the regular flow of interest to which it was entitled under the express terms of the mortgage to accept assurances of future payment from a borrower in whom it has lost confidence. [1]

Evans LJ agreed: [2]

In conclusion, a practical summary of our judgments may be helpful in future cases. Drawing on the above and on the judgment of Waite L.J., the following considerations are likely to be relevant when a “reasonable period” has to be established for the purposes of section 36 of the Act of 1970.

(a) How much can the borrower reasonably afford to pay, both now and in the future?
(b) If the borrower has a temporary difficulty in meeting his obligations, how long is the difficulty likely to last?
(c) What was the reason for the arrears which have accumulated?
(d) How much remains of the original term?
(e) What are relevant contractual terms, and what type of mortgage is it, i.e. when is the principal due to be repaid?
(f) Is it a case where the court should exercise its power to disregard accelerated payment provisions (section 8 of the Act of 1973)?
(g) Is it reasonable to expect the lender, in the circumstances of the particular case, to recoup the arrears of interest
(1) over the whole of the original term, or
(2) within a shorter period, or even
(3) within a longer period, i.e. by extending the repayment period? Is it reasonable to expect the lender to capitalise the interest or not?
(h) Are there any reasons affecting the security which should influence the length of the period for payment?

In the light of the answers to the above, the court can proceed to exercise its overall discretion, taking account also of any further factors which may arise in the particular case. [1]

The court therefore remitted the case to the county court for an application to adduce further evidence, assisting with forming a resolute judgment under these criteria. [1]

See also

Similar cases

Bristol & West Building Society v Ellis [1996] EWCA Civ 1294

Related Research Articles

A mortgage is a legal instrument of the common law which is used to create a security interest in real property held by a lender as a security for a debt, usually a mortgage loan. Hypothec is the corresponding term in civil law jurisdictions, albeit with a wider sense, as it also covers non-possessory lien.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Foreclosure</span> Legal process where a lender recoups an unpaid loan by forcing the borrower to sell the collateral

Foreclosure is a legal process in which a lender attempts to recover the balance of a loan from a borrower who has stopped making payments to the lender by forcing the sale of the asset used as the collateral for the loan.

The equity of redemption refers to the right of a mortgagor to redeem his or her property once the debt secured by the mortgage has been discharged.

<i>Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset</i>

Lloyds Bank plc v Rosset[1990] UKHL 14 is an English land law, trusts law and matrimonial law case. It specifically deals with the translation into money of physical contributions from a cohabitee or spouse, under which its principles have been largely superseded.

Forbearance, in the context of a mortgage process, is a special agreement between the lender and the borrower to delay a foreclosure. The literal meaning of forbearance is "holding back". This is also referred to as mortgage moratorium.

<i>Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd</i>

Williams v Roffey Bros & Nicholls (Contractors) Ltd[1989] EWCA Civ 5 is a leading English contract law case. It decided that in varying a contract, a promise to perform a pre-existing contractual obligation will constitute good consideration so long as a benefit is conferred upon the 'promiseor'. This was a departure from the previously established principle that promises to perform pre-existing contractual obligations could not be good consideration.

<i>Hussey v Palmer</i>

Hussey v Palmer [1972] EWCA Civ 1 is an English trusts law case of the Court of Appeal. It concerned the equitable remedy of constructive trusts. It invokes the equitable maxim, "equity regards the substance and not the form."

<i>Re Grays Inn Construction Co Ltd</i>

Re Gray's Inn Construction Co Ltd [1980] 1 WLR 711 is a leading UK insolvency law case, concerning the cessation of transactions without court approval after a winding up petition.

Paragon Finance plc v Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466 is an English contract law case concerning unfair contract terms.

<i>Medforth v Blake</i>

Medforth v Blake[1999] EWCA Civ 1482 is a UK insolvency law case concerning the duties of a receiver and manager in the United Kingdom, over and above a duty of good faith, as to the manner in which he conducts a business.

<i>Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd</i>

Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corp Ltd[1992] UKPC 34, [1993] AC 295 is a New Zealand insolvency law case decided by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council concerning the nature and extent of the liability of a mortgagee, or a receiver and manager, to a mortgagor or a subsequent debenture holder for his actions.

<i>Rainy Sky SA v Kookmin Bank</i>

Rainy Sky SA and others v Kookmin Bank is an English contract law case concerning interpretation of contracts. The Supreme Court confirmed the principle laid down in Wickman v Schuler that, if the words of a contract have ambiguous meanings, the court will interpret it in a manner that most accords with "business common sense". There is no requirement for a party to prove that the alternative interpretation is entirely unreasonable.

Financial law is the law and regulation of the commercial banking, capital markets, insurance, derivatives and investment management sectors. Understanding financial law is crucial to appreciating the creation and formation of banking and financial regulation, as well as the legal framework for finance generally. Financial law forms a substantial portion of commercial law, and notably a substantial proportion of the global economy, and legal billables are dependent on sound and clear legal policy pertaining to financial transactions. Therefore financial law as the law for financial industries involves public and private law matters. Understanding the legal implications of transactions and structures such as an indemnity, or overdraft is crucial to appreciating their effect in financial transactions. This is the core of financial law. Thus, financial law draws a narrower distinction than commercial or corporate law by focusing primarily on financial transactions, the financial market, and its participants; for example, the sale of goods may be part of commercial law but is not financial law. Financial law may be understood as being formed of three overarching methods, or pillars of law formation and categorised into five transaction silos which form the various financial positions prevalent in finance.

Link Lending Ltd v Bustard [2010] EWCA Civ 424 is an English land law case, concerning actual occupation in registered land and the vulnerable, in this case a defrauded person suffering from a mental syndrome who would have had little concept of what was occurring.

<i>Cuckmere Brick Co Ltd v Mutual Finance Ltd</i> 1971 English tort law case

Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance[1971] EWCA Civ 9 is an English tort law case, establishing the lender must publish/promote the materially beneficial key, intrinsic facts as to land in mortgage repossession sales. As it affects the duty of mortgagees, to that extent it can be considered within the periphery of English land law also.

<i>Bristol & West Building Society v Ellis</i>

Bristol & West Building Society v Ellis [1996] is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears, specifically the definition of "such time as the court thinks reasonable" for its suspension of possession orders under section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970.

<i>Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd</i>

Fairclough v Swan Brewery Co Ltd, is a land law case, in which the Privy Council held that restrictions on the right to redeem a mortgage are void. The equity of redemption means that borrowers are able to sell or obtain new mortgage finance promptly and without impinging on other dependent transactions.

<i>Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc</i>

Ropaigealach v Barclays Bank plc [2000] QB 263 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears and a rare mortgage over a family home which had a right to enter a home and sell it without a court order.

Mortgages in English law are a method of raising capital through a loan contract. Typically with a bank, the lender/mortgagee gives money to the borrower/mortgagor, who uses their property/land/home as security that they will repay the debt and any relevant interest. If the mortgagor fails to repay, then the mortgaged property which has been used as security may be subject to various mortgagee remedies allowing them to retrieve the debt. Mortgages are an important part of English land law and property law. These concern, first, the common law, statutory and regulatory rules to protect the mortgagor at the time of concluding the mortgage agreement. Second, English law defines and restricts the process for taking possession of property in the event of default. Third, it places duties on mortgagees on the price it achieves when selling property.

<i>Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc</i>

Palk v Mortgage Services Funding plc [1993] Ch 330 was a judicial decision of Court of Appeal of England and Wales relating to the enforcement of mortgages. The case concerned seeking an order for sale of the property through the courts, but it was slightly unusual in that it was the mortgagors who were seeking the order for sale, but the finance company holding the mortgage who were opposing it.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 "Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1995] EWCA Civ 11 (05 December 1995)". Bailii.org. Retrieved 7 September 2022.
  2. ↑ [1996] 1 WLR 343, 357-8
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.