Enforcing mortgages and charges

Legal and equitable mortgages and charges

The terms ‘mortgage’ and ‘charge’ are often used as though they are interchangeable. Strictly speaking, they are not. Both are security for the payment of a debt or other obligation. However, while a mortgage confers an interest in property, a charge is the appropriation of property without giving the creditor either a general or special interest in, or possession of, the subject of the security. The classic description of a mortgage is ‘a conveyance of land…for the payment of a debt or the discharge of some other obligation for which it is given’. See Practice Note: Mortgages and land—an introduction to mortgages and legal charges over land.

Priority between interests

In addition to ensuring its security has been validly created and perfected, a secured party will want to ensure its security ranks as it expects against any other competing security interests. Disputes as to priority arise less commonly than might be expected due to the use of deeds of priority and intercreditor agreements. However, these are only of use if the creditors are aware of each others’ security

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Property Disputes News

Occupiers’ liability and the threshold test for duty of care (Lillystone v Bradgate)

PI & Clinical Negligence analysis: Upon appeal, the High Court found that a claimant casual footballer paying to play a ‘knockabout’ game at school premises where there were no arrangements in place to retrieve a ball kicked out of play into another part of the defendant’s sports facilities (adjacent sports playing fields) caused his own injury when he climbed a 2.1m gate and severely lacerated his hand. The claimant was a trespasser while climbing the gate between two adjacent parts of the premises where he was not a trespasser. The defendant’s duty of care did not extend to providing any system or facilities to aid ball retrievable, despite the trial judge’s findings that doing nothing and waiting was ‘not what football players would do’. The threshold test imposing a duty of care was not met because the claimant decided to climb the locked gate to gain access to adjacent playing fields. What amounts to ‘reasonable’ safety of visitors under section 2(2) and (5) of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 (OLA 1957) appears to fall firmly within the characteristics equating to a definition of ‘reasonable’ amounting to ‘adequate’, rather than equating to the dictionary definition of reasonable ‘based on or using good judgment and therefore fair and practical’. On the facts and circumstances of this case the sports premises were safe, despite there being no facility for ball retrieval. The danger to the claimant only arose because the claimant decided to take a risk to climb a gate that was an obvious danger. Written by Abigail Holt, barrister at Garden Court Chambers.

View Property Disputes by content type :

Popular documents