Case of a wife’s forged signature on the mortgage documents. The wife had only a small (10%) beneficial share. There was no real prospect of the wife acquiring the other share. CA held that the bank was entitled to an order for sale and that the judge had not given due weight to the interests of the lender under s.15 of TLATA 1996, since the lender would be done an injustice if he could not acquire a money value for his vast majority share.
Peter Gibson LJ: “The 1996 Act, by requiring the court to have regard to the particular matters specified in section 15, appears to have given scope for some change in the court’s practice. Nevertheless, a powerful consideration is and ought to be whether the creditor is receiving proper recompense for being kept out of his money, repayment of which is overdue”.
Radley-Gardner: This more restrictive reading of the 1996 act may be to avoid encouraging banks to bring bankruptcy proceedings in place of repossession proceedings and therefore the 1996 had to seem more favourable to them.