Paddington BS v Mendelsohn [1985] 50 P & CR 244
Country:
United Kingdom
Reviewed By Oxbridge Law Team
Updated 2024-01-04 07:02:32 UTC
Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 bought a flat in Defendant 1’s name, but paid for by both, with Plaintiff giving a mortgage.
At the time of the mortgage and completion, there were no express agreements of beneficial interest/trust, so that intentions would have to be imputed to them: Since the mother knew that the flat couldn’t be purchased without the mortgage, she is taken to have accepted that her interest would concede priority to the bank’s interest.
Any comments or edits about this case?
Get in touch Similar cases
Bristol and West BS v Henning
Defendant 1 bought a house in which he and Defendant 2 lived. He mortgaged the house, with her knowledge and approval, and when he ceased payments the bank, Plaintiff, sued for possession. CA rejecte...
Equity and Law Home Loans v Prestidge
A couple bought a property in Defendant’s name, but B had a beneficial interest. Defendant extended their initial mortgage (to which B had consented) from Plaintiff whom he told of B’s beneficial int...
Lloyds Bank v Carrick
Defendant 1 told Defendant 2 he would provide her with a house if she gave him money to pay for it, which she did. However the house remained in Defendant 1’s name and did not register her interest....
Kingsnorth Finance Co Ltd v Tizard
Plaintiff had an equitable interest in a house, which her husband mortgaged to Defendant without telling her. Issue was whether Defendant bought its rights subject to those of Plaintiff. Court held t...
United Bank of Kuwait plc v Sahib
S mortgaged his house to Plaintiff with the necessary deed, registration etc., and sought a declaration that it had priority over Defendant who had agreed a mortgage informally, without writing etc....
Ambitious and intelligent students
choose Oxbridge Notes.
- Customer Support
- Sellers FAQ
- Contact Us
- Privacy Policy
- Terms and Conditions
©2024 Oxbridge Notes. All right reserved.