Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
Nigel Clayton, a barrister at Kings Chambers in Manchester, Leeds andBirmingham, advises that the judgment in the Campbell case calls for a clearer protocol to manage mortgage repossessions in an effective andproportionate way.
Campbell v Redstone Mortgages Ltd  EWHC 3081 (Ch)
This was the trial of a preliminary issue on liability in a claim brought by a borrower (C, a litigant in person) against a lender (R) following the repossession of C’s residential property (a farm) after protracted anddifficult mortgage possession proceedings which had been ongoing since 2007.
C’s principal complaint was in respect of the disposal by R of personal property which C claimed she had been unable to remove from the farm, either prior to or after the repossession. Her claim for injunctive relief was struck out andwas ordered to proceed on the issue of liability only, namely whether C had a right to claim damages as a result of R’s disposal of the goods. It was common ground that R was an involuntary bailee of the goods.
C also issued separate proceedings seeking possession of the property following repossession on the ground that her mortgage deed had been perpetrated by fraud in that it had not been validly executed in the presence of a witness contrary to the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989, s 1(3) (LP(MP)A 1989). While that claim had been struck out, andan appeal for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal dismissed, as being totally without merit, C sought to raise the same issue in a yet further claim which was adjourned to be heard with the trial of the preliminary issue.
Thus, as the judge directed himself at para , he had to decide two issues:
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
* denotes a required field
**excludes LexisPSL Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial. See our full terms here.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234