Plaintiff was in arrears to the mortgagee, Defendant, and sought to defend possession on the grounds that he had been unfairly dismissed by one of Plaintiff’s associate companies, X, would win money in excess of what he owed to Defendant, and therefore the repossession ought to be stayed.
Rejected Defendant’s argument.
A counter-claim does not prevent their being a claim for repossession, and the power to stay proceedings under s.36 AJA 1970 did not apply because repayment would not have been possible within a reasonable period (the unfair dismissal claim was not due for another 2 years at the time of the first instance trial).
Also, where it is of no benefit to the mortgagee to allow possession claims against one but not both parties, it is wrong to order that only one of the possessing parties leave.
Since 2010, Oxbridge Notes has been a trusted education marketplace, supplying high-quality materials from top achievers at universities like Oxford, Cambridge, LSE, Harvard, and Yale.
We offer free case summaries, sample notes, and award-winning content, all curated and approved by our editorial team. Our reputation for excellence has led to features in The Guardian, Wikipedia, and the National Council for Law Reporting (Kenya Law).
Every year, millions of students utilize our free and premium notes to aid their studies.