the essential & official lpc law magazine immi-great britain? · 2015-11-02 ·...
Post on 24-Jun-2020
8 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ADVOCATOR The Essential & Official LPC Law Magazine
Autumn 2015
£3.00
IMMI-GREAT BRITAIN?
In this issue: Migrant Crisis * Wills * Mortgages * Three Peaks Challenge
Are Migrants Welcome?
Page 2 Advocator
Across
6 Peter carries sweet which is flat.
(7)
7 Ric has mole in hole (5)
9 Loathe cap on energy (4)
10 Rewarding and paying debts
(10)
11 Fat duck forages one mix (4,4)
13 Handel broke no harp to fund
one of these (6)
15 Challenge from devils are rarely
easy (4)
17 Garments kids would say are
rubbish (5)
18 Steam drops a support (4)
19 Dizzy town crier loses con
author (6)
20 Fundamental misreading of
metric system without clause
(8)
23 Denomination who can alter
thinking (10)
26 BACS reversed caused wound
(4)
27 Tiny southern shop (5)
28 No enema needed for this
creature (7)
Down
1 Preceding to shred Entente
Cordiale as Loire annexed
(10)
2 Rewash mucky mooring line
(6)
3 Point to directions, on time
(4)
4 'Cutters start circling in
South Sea!' orders rich sailor.
(8)
5 Boats that could be blue (4)
6 Instrument plays quietly (5)
8 Unnamed spin is dull (7)
12 Offence leads American into
cavity (5)
14 Hold one on acquisition (10)
16 Bald so lose hope within
vacuum (7)
17 Left can be moveable (8)
21 Resign foolish musician (6)
22 How meaningless? A nine?
(5)
24 Tin one could find online? (4)
25 Preacher “I may attend
Mosque” (4)
Find the hidden word and e-mail it to
onedownandtenacross@lpc-law.co.uk for a chance to
win a bottle. Entries must be submitted by 4pm on
20/11/2015 to be counted and will be drawn at random.
Good luck!
Welcome
Welcome to the Autumn edition of Advocator!
After a long ‘summer’, we’re back with the latest in LPC Law news and entertainment.
In this edition, South Eastern Circuit Advocate David Chamberlain considers the application of section 36 in
circumstances where a lender seeks possession at the expiry of the mortgage term or as a result of a non-financial
breach of the mortgage.
Meanwhile, Wales Circuit Advocate,Eve McFadzean looks at the sorry situation at the port of Calais and Assistant
Advocacy Manager Jonathan Hasson reviews the case of Ilott v. Mitson [2011] EWCA Civ 346 wherein the Court
allowed a daughter to recover a part of her mother’s will despite having been previously disinherited.
Advocator also reports on and congratulates Team LPC for completing the ‘Three Peaks’ challenge, Head of Advocacy,
Patrick Le Bas on becoming a father and Laura-Pauline Adcock-Jones on her recent nuptials.
Finally, don’t forget to submit your answer to our prize winning crossword competition and keep your eyes peeled for
some photos of LPC Law’s ‘Legal Update and Business Review’ at various locations across the country.
I hope you enjoy the latest instalment.
Stuart Snow - Editor Alex Othon - Design
Luke Gibson (South Eastern Circuit)
LPC Law Crossword Competition
Autumn 2015 Page 3
Laura-Pauline Adcock-Jones
Advocate
South Eastern Circuit
Everyone knows that I love to plan a party; from the last Christmas party to my own wedding
this summer (see page 6), I knew that it would not be long before I found my next party excuse.
Fortunately, Patrick gave me the perfect opportunity when he announced that he and his wife
Abi were expecting a baby, leaving me to plan LPC’s first ever surprise “Dad-chelor Party”,
which was held on 2 September 2015.
Firstly, let me set the record straight – Patrick did not sit in the middle of a room eating dainty
sandwiches, wearing bows and ribbons on his head and cooing over cute baby onesies.
Instead, he was given beer to drink from a baby bottle, served takeaway pizza and forced to
participate in thirteen baby-orientated games. Patrick was, however, allowed to pick his fellow
participants in each game, which included guessing the chocolate in the dirty nappy, a pram-
relay around the office, blind-tasting of baby food and “giving birth” to a balloon baby using
only hip thrusting.
Thank you to everyone who attended and made the party a truly memorable evening – now we
know just how many songs involve the word “baby” and the answer to “how much practice
does Patrick need before he can be called a nappy-changing pro?” The answer is ... a lot but, at
least he now has had the chance to prepare!
Congratulations to Patrick and Abi on the birth of their baby Theo. Enjoy parenthood and bring
on the next LPC pregnancy!
Going Goo-Goo Ga-Ga For Le Bas
Michael
Javaherian
(above) with
Paul Luukas
and Patrick Le
Bas (right)
attempting to
give birth to
their balloons.
Mind over matter in guessing the chocolate bar in the dirty nappy.
Confusion sets in for
Patrick Le Bas,
Andrew Morgan,
Stuart Snow and
Michael Javaherian in
the nappy changing
game.
Patrick Le Bas,
Jonathan
Shucksmith, Paul
Luukas, Stuart
Snow and
Andrew Morgan
take on the baby
food tasting
contest.
Ros Wilson, Andrew Morgan, Patrick Le Bas, Paul Luukas, and Alex Othon
need winding after taking on the race to drink a beer from a baby bottle
in the quickest time.
migrants attempt to reach Britain
through the French borders. Calais
has been described as a fortress - a
gathering place of shantytowns for
illegal migrants hoping to settle in
Britain. Blame has been placed on
both sides of the border for the
increasingly unstable situation and a
refusal for either country to take
responsibility. This was exacerbated
by a lengthy strike by ferry workers
that began in June. Transport links
were severely disrupted, and
thousands of stranded migrants
were caught in the chaos, some
trying to take advantage of the
situation by breaking into stationary
vehicles as they waited in the
tailbacks. Since then, there have
been numerous reports of migrants
trying to make the crossing either in
vehicles or simply by walking
through the tunnel.
Calais has been portrayed as a major
battleground of the migration crisis,
We have been encouraged to neatly
box the seemingly overwhelming
influx of immigrants into two
categories: economic migrants
causing chaos at Calais, or Syrian
refugees fleeing violence in boats
across the Mediterranean. There
have been regular devastating
reports of migrants losing their lives
in attempts to reach Europe. These
mass deaths have often been
portrayed and viewed as the
consequences of migration, a risky
choice that ambitious individuals
have made. In fact, these deaths are
symptoms of a shocking
humanitarian crisis. A turning point
may have been reached when
images were published in September
of three year old Aylan Kurdi,
washed up dead on a Turkish beach
after his family fled with him from
Syria to seek safety in Europe. The
resulting demonstrations of support
and welcome for migrants across
Europe have been heartening;
however, it seems that there is still
no long-term cohesive plan to deal
with the crisis.
Chaos in Calais
A great deal of attention has been
placed on the events in Calais, as
Page 4 Advocator
A Flood of Foreigners
Recent reports claimed there are
now over 8 million people living in
Britain that were not born here.
According to some newspapers, this
information revealed the shocking
scale of immigration and we were
invited to shake our heads in
disbelief at these ‘foreigners’ taking
over our beloved country. However,
in a surprise move for British media,
there was a distinct lack of context
for this story. Should we be
classifying Boris Johnson (born in
New York) as a migrant desperate to
exploit our economic system? Is
Emma Watson (born in Paris) simply
living here to steal jobs from
genuine British citizens trying to get
into the film business?
It is true that, this year, the number
of migrants attempting to settle in
Europe has reached unprecedented
levels, as hundreds of thousands of
people attempt to leave the Middle
East and North Africa to begin new
lives away from poverty and
violence. However, the media
coverage of the ongoing crisis, and
the role Britain will continue to play,
has been less than clear.
Migrants Welcome?
Britain and the Migration Crisis
been questioned, especially by the
smaller member states that voted
against the implementation of
quotas. Britain has chosen to work in
conjunction with other organisations
such as the UN to resettle migrants
in our country. A government
minister with responsibility for Syrian
refugees has also been appointed.
However, only 216 people have so
far been relocated under Britain’s
dedicated Syrian Vulnerable Persons
scheme, offering a home to the most
needy refugees. As this number of
people could easily fit inside one
Tube train, the statistics do not seem
right.
Conclusion
Europe’s Migration Commissioner
Dimitris Avramapoulos has been said
that Europe is experiencing the
world’s most serious migrant crisis
since the Second World War. But can
any of us, reading this article in the
safety of our homes and workplaces,
truly say we are experiencing this
crisis on any kind of personal or
physical level? Or are we simply
observing as the dramas unfold,
handed to us by the media through
convenient sound bites, heart
w r e n c h i n g p i c t u r e s a n d
scaremongering statistics. British
attitudes towards immigration
continue to fluctuate as the crisis
develops. It takes closer examination
to reveal that the lines between
economic migrants and war refugees
are blurred. The political, economic
and humanitarian origins of this
crisis cannot be simplified, and the
solution may be just as complicated.
Europe to reach refuge. Officially, the
British government has recognised
its moral responsibility to provide aid
to the refugees, reflecting a long
history of taking in those who
require sanctuary. The Prime Minister
has emphasised the need for a
comprehensive approach to the
crisis that tackles the source of the
problem as well as the
consequences . The Br i t i sh
government has announced its
largest ever response to a
humanitarian crisis, pledging over £1
billion of aid to those suffering in
Syria and the neighbouring
countries. As well as the provision of
food, clean water and education, the
British government has said it is
committed to seeking political unity
and resolution of the root of the
tragedy. The Royal Navy has been
involved in the rescue of over 6,700
migrants attempting to cross the
Mediterranean, and it was
announced that 20,000 migrants will
be taken in over the next 5 years.
Undoubtedly there is huge merit in
providing aid in the regions where
the vast majority of those who need
it remain. However, what is surely
required to bring help to migrants
who have been forced to leave their
homes is a united approach from
Europe. Britain is not participating in
the European Union’s plans to
provide relocation to the migrants
that need it most desperately. We
have opted out of new proposals to
enforce the acceptance of quotas of
migrants on member states. The
popularity of the EU policies has
and is typically associated with
economic migrants seeking to take
advantage of a new life in Britain. It
has been questioned whether these
migrants are intending to seek
genuine asylum in Britain, and if so
why they have not done this in
France or the other European
countries they may have passed
through. Britain is often described as
an easy target for economic
migrants when, in reality, asylum
seekers will not be allowed to work
or claim most benefits, and are,
according to the government’s
website, expected to live on around
£5 per day (£36.95 per week). In any
event, according to figures from
August published in the Guardian on
10 August 2015, the migrants at
Calais account for just 1% of those
who have arrived in Europe so far
this year. There is also no firm
evidence to show how many of those
arriving at Calais then progress to
live in Britain, despite various reports
that we are being flooded with
migrants travelling from France.
Humanitarian Crisis
In truth, there is no easy way to
classify migrants; many are seeking a
new life for a whole multitude of
reasons. The other focus of the crisis
has undoubtedly been Syrian
refugees fleeing years of violence
and civil unrest. Families have been
faced with the choice between
staying in their home country, or
leaving everything behind in pursuit
of safety and the hope of building
new lives. This is a postcode lottery
with deadly consequences. It has
been said that 11 million people
have been displaced as a result of
the conflict. Many of those leaving
the war torn region are attempting
to cross the Eastern Mediterranean
from Turkey, then moving through
Page 5 Autumn 2015
Eve McFadzean
Advocate
Wales Circuit
Advocator Page 6
LPC Law Summer Party After what felt like weeks of discussion about how to get there,
and most importantly what would be included in the tab, the first
of LPC Law’s new monthly staff parties was upon us, starting with
a summer party extravaganza.
From 5.30pm, plus a further hour for the girls who took up camp
in the bathroom, everyone made tracks to the tricky to find
Benugo Bar at the BFI on the Southbank.
The area resembled someone’s living room with an array of
books, an interesting elephant seat with a crocked trunk and,
most importantly, an eager barman.
In true LPC style, Tony Crowder initiated an ‘internet proof’
quiz which proved, for some, not to be fully internet proof -
you know who you are!
The night was in full swing, helped by numerous servings of
canapés and countless trips to the bar. It didn’t take long for
Trivial Pursuit to be spotted in the book case and for Esther
and Alex to take turns at being quiz master. The extent of
useless information stored by LPC soon came to light,
especially amongst Josh and Emma.
The party was a resounding success and people were left
looking forward to the next outing.
Congratulations!
Congratulations to South
Eastern Advocate Laura-
Pauline who married Steve to
become the double-double
barrelled Laura-Pauline
Adcock-Jones...
.... And the Editor of
Advocator got married
too! Congratulations
also to Stuart &
Victoria.
Page 7 Autumn 2015
LPC and Hamlins continued their longstanding football rivalry with a pulsating 8-8 draw being played out on Thursday 1
October 2015 under the floodlights at Poplar.
The LPC Team of Andrew Morgan, Adam Bell, Alex Othon, Chris Nicholaou, Laurence Innes & Jack Underwood met the
Hamlins Team of Paul Sagar, Ertac Hussein, David Koubiak, Martin
Ochs and Antony Perlmutter in a high quality game which was ably
referreed by our own Tony Crowder.
Defending was not high on either teams’ priorities, with both going
for goals at every available opportunity, making the game a great
watch for those who attended.
In the end, the sides could not be separated, so both teams retired to
a local watering hole and set about planning the next encounter.
Between June and September this year, members of the senior management
team and Advocacy Managers went on tour, hosting eight Legal Update and
Business Review seminars across the country. The seminars, known colloquially as “The Roadshow”, were a forum to
discuss the structure of LPC Law, how the business had changed over recent years and some of the most significant legal
and procedural developments of late.
Because the majority of advocates instructed by LPC Law are based outside of London and away from LPC Law HQ, the
Roadshow provided an insight into how the business works and how the decisions affecting advocates (are made. It was
also an opportunity to discuss our clients’ changing needs and requirements.
The Roadshow’s legal update looked at a number of topics, including recent case law surrounding applications for relief
from sanctions, costs reforms in personal injury claims and the new pre-action protocol for residential mortgage
repossession claims. Some of the topics were so “of the moment” that we had to make amendments to the presentation
between ‘gigs’, as new judgments were handed down!
To make sure that the information gained through the seminars was retained, each Roadshow ended with drinks (the
technical term is ‘knowledge pickling’), which in some cases were still being raised deep into the next morning!
Oliver Riley, Rachel Thomas & Susan Davis Vittoria Trigilio & Stuart Snow
Libby Bentley, Hannah Norrington & Frederica Elliott
Holly Nottage, Francesca Steels, Paul Dormand
& Edward Marsh
LUBR Seminars
Football - LPC Law v Hamlins
Bristol - 31st July 2015
Page 8 Advocator
failure of the mother to make
“reasonable financial provision” in
her will for her daughter.
Part of the reasoning was the view of
the Court of Appeal that the
daughter would be left in poverty if
she were entirely disinherited, as the
family was already said to be in a
difficult situation. Also playing a part
was the lack of association of the
deceased with the charities to whom
she left her estate.
The Act itself gives wide latitude to
the Courts to decide what factors
may be relevant in making a
decision, including the provision that
these may include “... any other
matter, including the conduct of the
applicant or any other person, which
in the circumstances of the case the
court may consider relevant.”
The Potential Consequences
This was a somewhat novel use of
the Inheritance Act, which is more
commonly used when young
children are not included in wills
(usually because they have not been
updated) and thus may otherwise
unjustly lose out on inheritance and
lack in financial support.
Potentially, therefore, this decision,
and the publicity that it has received
in the media, may inspire future
applications to the Courts by adult
relatives of deceased persons. There
is unlikely to be a shortage of
disinherited family members who see
an opportunity to gain financially,
and perhaps vent some long-
standing familial grievances; the
apparent incident that sparked the
disinheritance in the instant case was
the decision of the now 54 year-old
woman, when she was still a
teenager, to marry a man of whom
her mother disapproved.
The Argument
It is not hard to sympathise with the
year-old woman who was
disinherited by her mother and left
out of the distribution of her
£500,000 estate - in favour of a
number of animal charities - should
in fact receive one third of the funds.
This was despite the very clear stated
intentions of the mother who had
not only excluded her daughter from
her will but instructed her executors
to fight any attempt by her daughter
to claim a share.
The amount eventually awarded by
the Court of Appeal, after years of
litigation, was intended to be
enough to enable the daughter to
purchase a property and have a
small sum left over, although not
enough to interfere with the benefits
she received.
The Law
The decision was based on the
Inheritance (Provision for Family and
Dependants) Act 1975 and the
Whilst it still remains the case that,
“you can’t take it with you,” the level
to which you can exert control over
what happens to your assets after
your death has had doubt cast upon
it recently by a well publicised
decision of the Court of Appeal.
The Decision
The Court of Appeal held that a 54
From Beyond The Grave
Is Your Will Still Your Will?
then tailor the specific result by
utilising factors such as the price of
property, and the level at which
benefits may be withdrawn, in order
to produce a final result?
The role of Judges is classically said
to interpret and apply the law. Does
this extend to simply inserting an
opinion - in complex circumstances -
as to what the morally better choice
may have been, and then to insert
that view in place of that made by
someone else, that being someone
who made a choice that they were
perfectly entitled to make and
capable of making? If a Judge cannot
order a person to provide for and
support a perfectly able and
competent adult child of theirs whilst
they are alive, then why do they
suddenly gain such a power upon
that person’s death?
Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s
decision must be followed by lower
courts. But the potential for the
uneven application of the principles
laid down is clearly substantial and
the latitude that the legislation
affords to Judges is broad. Judges
may soon have to reach a view on
what exactly a person reasonably
needs and even deserves. Judges
may find themselves deciding, as the
Court of Appeal were in the instant
case, if someone is entitled to have
the finances made available to them
to go on holiday and to own their
own property - something that many
other people simply cannot afford.
And Judges may need to somehow
discern that that need is more
pressing than a thoroughly worthy
charitable cause that could even use
the very same funds to save lives.
position of a disinherited relative,
particularly an adult child who is
struggling to make ends meet and
support their own family, in seeing a
large amount of money passed
elsewhere. The perceived
capriciousness and cruelty of the
rationale in the decision to disinherit
- simple disapproval of the object of
a child’s affections, something with
which many people throughout
history can no doubt sympathise -
can also make the decision of the
Court in instances such as this
something with which it is easy to
sympathise. After all, does a child not
have a right to expect support from
their parents, the ones ultimately
responsible for their creation?
At the same time, though, it is not
hard to see a potentially substantial
judicial over-stretch in the ignoring
of the unambiguous wishes and
expressed desires of a person as to
how their estate is to be utilised
upon their death.
After all, this was not a case of
simply compensating a deserving
Page 9 Autumn 2015
relative who was left out of a will by
accident or a quirk of fate. The
decision was consciously made and
communicated to the mother’s
lawyers before her death, along with
her reasoning. There is clearly
nothing uncertain about an
expressed wish to fight any attempts
of the daughter to obtain a share of
her mother’s estate.
Furthermore, there was absolutely
nothing to obligate the mother in
the instant case to provide any
support to her adult daughter while
she was alive. If she had utilised her
final years in a quest to ensure there
was no inheritance remaining upon
her demise, there would be nothing
that anyone could do to improve the
position of the daughter – if there
was no inheritance at all then there
would be nothing of which to seek a
share.
So why, one may well ask, should it
be the case that wills - legal
documents created by people of
sound mind - can simply be over-
ridden because a Judge some time
later decides, taking into account
whatever they deem they need to,
that a freely-made decision of a
competent person was not the
“right” decision? And is it really
applying any clear legal principle to
Jonathan Hasson
Assistant Advocacy Manager
Page 10 Advocator
When Chickens Come Home To Roost
Section 36 and Non-Standard Mortgages Interest-only mortgages
Interest-only mortgages, which allow
a borrower to defer the repayment
of the principal sum until the end of
the mortgage, became very popular
during the housing boom of the
2000s, reaching a peak in 2007 when
it is reported that a third of
mortgages were interest-only.
Unfortunately, rather than investing
in an appropriate repayment vehicle
in order to pay off the loan, many
borrowers failed to put into place
any repayment plan. In 2013, the
FCA published research showing that
almost half of all people with interest
-only mortgages, being 1.3 million
homeowners, might not be able to
afford to pay off the loan at maturity
According to an article published by
Citizen’s Advice Bureau on 4th
September 2015, based on figures
taken from a YouGov poll, the scale
of the problem has been greatly
underestimated. It is projected that
there are 3.3 million homeowners
with interest-only mortgages, of
which 1.7 million have no repayment
vehicle, 934,000 have no plan for
repayment and 432,727 have not
be able within a reasonable period to
pay any sums due under the
mortgage or to remedy a default
consisting of a breach of any other
obligation arising under or by virtue
of the mortgage.” It is clear that the
discretion is not confined to
mortgage arrears and there is no
reason in principle why it cannot
apply to a different kind of breach,
even, arguably, a breach of the
requirement to pay the loan in full at
the expiry of the term.
The question which arises is what
constitutes a ‘reasonable period of
time’ for these purposes. In the case
of mortgage arrears, this is easily
answered by reference to
Cheltenham and Gloucester Building
Society v Norgan [1996] 1 W.L.R. 343,
in which it was stated that the
starting point is to consider whether
the defendant is likely to pay off the
arrears within the remaining term of
the mortgage whilst maintaining the
monthly mortgage instalments.
In the case of a failure to pay off the
loan in full upon the expiry of the
mortgage term, the answer is less
immediately obvious. What
even thought about how they will
repay the loan. Although FCA
guidance requires lenders to treat
possession as a last resort and sets
out a best practice model which
includes considering whether it is
possible to offer repayment options,
it recognises that there is no
obligation to offer such options and
that they might not be available, for
example where borrowers are at, or
near to, retirement age. It is
therefore very likely that there will be
a significant number of claims issued
in the next few years in the
circumstances described above.
How does the Court deal with
interest-only mortgage possession
claims?
The most important issue is
undoubtedly whether and to what
extent the Court has a discretion
under ss36 and 8 of the
Administration of Justice Acts 1970
and 1973 respectively to adjourn
proceedings or to make an order for
possession suspended on payment
terms. According to s.36, the
discretion arises “if it appears to the
court that...the mortgagor is likely to
Page 11 Autumn 2015
balance. It might therefore appear to
the Court that there is no imminent
danger of forfeiture.
However, it is strongly arguable that
the breach of the condition to pay
the ground rent and service charges,
however small those sums might be,
is incapable of remedy. Whilst the
missed payments can, subject to
affordability, be remedied, the
breach of the obligation to pay the
ground rent and charges to the
freeholder cannot nor can the fact
that the lender has been required to
make the payment on the borrower’s
behalf. It therefore follows that, in
these circumstances, s.36 cannot be
engaged. As was established in
Smith v Spaul [2002] EWCA Civ 1830,
whilst a mortgagee is entitled to
apply for relief from forfeiture
pursuant to s.146 Law of Property
Act 1925, there is no requirement for
the mortgagee to be served with
notice requiring remedy of the
breach and the lessor might
therefore forfeit the lease without
the mortgagee’s knowledge.
It can also be argued that a lender
ought not to be penalised for
seeking to protect its security by
paying the outstanding ground rent
and service charges and that the fact
that the borrower has already
breached the term requiring
payment of those sums means that
he is not taking the matter seriously
and is likely to do it again. Further, it
would seem most unreasonable to
expect the lender to keep paying
those sums on the borrower’s behalf
indefinitely when, in failing to do so,
the borrower has clearly breached
the terms of the mortgage.
argument that the Court does not
have a discretion to extend the
repayments beyond the term of the
mortgage in the circumstances. This
will be strengthened where a lender
demonstrates that steps have been
taken to contact the borrower in
advance of the expiry date and to
consider possible repayment options
in accordance with the FCA guidance
referred to above.
Shared-ownership mortgages
Another current issue is that of the
shared-ownership mortgage,
whereby the mortgaged property is
a leasehold property and the
borrower has failed to maintain
payments to the freeholder, usually a
housing association, of the ground
rent, service charges or both. As
above, such a possession claim will
be pleaded on the basis of ‘other
breach’, notwithstanding that there
might also be some associated
mortgage arrears. (The mortgage will
no doubt contain a term that the
borrower must pay any ground rent
or service charges falling due in
respect of the lease.)
The question of whether s.36 is
engaged is made difficult by the
nature of the breach. The borrower’s
failure to maintain payments due
under the lease amounts to a breach
of a condition of the lease which
entitles the freeholder to forfeiture,
extinguishing the claimant’s security.
Unsurprisingly, this is an outcome
lenders are keen to avoid. Such
claims are often made in
circumstances where the lender has
already paid the outstanding ground
rent or service charges to the
freeholder in an effort to prevent
forfeiture and, in accordance with
the terms of the mortgage, has
added those sums to the mortgage
constitutes a ‘reasonable period of
time’ cannot be judged by reference
to the remaining term of the
mortgage as that term has expired.
The question is then whether the
Court can extend the period of time
for repayment beyond the term of
the mortgage. It was said by Evans
LJ in Norgan that “A ‘reasonable
period’ implies that the interests of
both parties have to be taken into
account” and that “it may not often
be reasonable to expect the lender
to wait longer than the original
term”. Whilst not explicitly
addressing the question of the
circumstances in which it might be
reasonable to extend the repayment
period beyond the term of the
mortgage and by how long, Evans LJ
provided some assistance by way of
a summary in which he listed various
considerations including the type of
the mortgage, the reason for the
arrears, the date full repayment is
due and whether or not it is a case in
which it is reasonable to expect the
lender to capitalise the interest.
In the case of a defendant’s failure to
repay the loan in full on expiry of the
term, clearly the fact that it is an
interest-only mortgage, the fact that
the defendant has failed to secure or
maintain a suitable repayment
vehicle as required, the fact that the
whole sum has already become
payable and the fact that the
claimant is not receiving any
recompense for being kept out of its
money or for being unable to profit
by lending that money to other
customers strongly support an
David Chamberlain
Advocate
South-Eastern Circuit
LPC Law Ltd, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR Tel: 020 7090 1500 Fax: 020 7090 1550 Email: info@lpc-law.co.uk
Three
Peaks
Challenge Leaving London on the (very, very long) train to Glasgow on 9th July
2015, the 5 LPC Mountain Climbers (Andrew Morgan, Adam Taplin,
Andrew Morrell, Lettica Phillips and Pete Blackmore), along with key
team member/minibus driver/sandwich maker Michael Javaherian, were
ready for the challenge that lay before them.
After a brief stopover in lovely Glasgow for the evening, we picked up
our minibus, stocked up on ridiculous amounts of pasta, sausage rolls
and energy drinks and headed up into the Highlands.
Ben Nevis was started by the team at 17:00 and the sheer scale of the
mountain became apparent. What became more apparent, however,
was that the weather did not look like it was going to be with us. The
first 1000m of the climb were relatively straight forward but, after this,
the low lying cloud meant that any hopes of a pleasant view at the top
were dashed. Not to be perturbed, the team were back down to awake
the silently slumbering Michael at 21:45, 15 minutes ahead of our 5
hour target.
Everybody then found the
cosiest spot they could in the
minibus for the overnight drive
to Scafell Pike in the Lake
District. Unfortunately, luck was
not with us on the drive south,
as a large section of a key motorway had been closed, meaning any time that we had
gained on Ben Nevis, was lost and we arrived at Scafell Pike, some 45 minutes after our
target of 04:00. Not wanting to waste any time, our 5 intrepid mountaineers jumped out
of the minibus and began their second ascent. It soon became clear that the weather
had taken a turn for the worse. Visibility became a major issue. Indeed, just below the
summit, we stumbled onto 3 lost “Three Peakers” who had become separated from their
team and had no maps or idea of where they were. It was decided that it was more important to ensure they got off the
mountain safely so, just shy of the summit, we chose to lend a helping hand to our 3 new team members.
Getting down to the minibus at 09:45, we were aware that the odds of us now finishing in the target time of 24 hours were
slim. Still, everybody was still hoping that Snowdon would be kinder to us than the other mountains for weather. It wasn’t. We
arrived at Snowdon, again delayed by traffic, at approximately 14:30. The time we had allocated to Snowdon was 4 hours up
and down, so to finish by 17:00 was going to be tough. It turned out it was impossible. The weather had turned from bad to
awful. However, I’m proud to say our team knuckled down and finished Snowdon, when many others were giving up. Coming
off the mountain at a time of 19:40, meant we had missed our target time but everybody still had a great sense of achievement
(finishing in 26:40).
2nd Peak! Scafell
Pike
Start 4.45am
1
2
5
3
4
Prep! Glasgow
Overnight
1st Peak! Ben Nevis
Start 5pm
Finish 9.45pm
Start!
London
3rd Peak! Snowdon
Start 2.30pm
Finish 7.40pm
Adam Taplin, Andrew Morrell, Pete Blackmore, Andrew Morgan and
Lettica Phillips Well deserved bubbly to celebrate an excellent achievement!
Driver Michael Javaherian with Andrew
Morrell, Lettica Phillips, Andrew Morgan and
Pete Blackmore
top related