This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

Bristol & West BS v Ellis [1996] 73 P&CR 158

By Oxbridge Law TeamUpdated 07/01/2024 21:12

Judgement for the case Bristol & West BS v Ellis

KEY POINTS

  • In cases where a property is up for sale and there are signs that the homeowner may cause delays, a brief suspension of a few months might be considered reasonable.

  • In situations where there is anticipated significant delay in selling the property and its value is nearly equal to the total mortgage debt and arrears, putting the lender's security at risk, immediate possession or a short suspension period could be justified.

  • If there has already been substantial delay in selling the property, or it's unlikely that the sale proceeds will cover the mortgage debt and arrears, or if there is insufficient evidence regarding the property's value, the standard course of action would be to grant immediate possession.

FACTS

  • The Bristol & West Building Society was the mortgagee for Mr. and Mrs. Ellis's home. The mortgage was initially £40,000 with monthly interest-only payments. Later, it was increased to £60,000. Mr. Ellis left in 1990, and the Ellises fell behind on payments. In 1990, Bristol & West sought possession of the house due to arrears. A court ordered Mrs. Ellis to pay a lump sum and additional monthly payments to cover the arrears. She didn't comply.

  • By 1995, Mrs. Ellis owed over £76,000 to Bristol & West. She applied for suspension of a warrant for possession, stating her intention to sell the house in 3 to 5 years after her children completed their education. The court ordered suspension but imposed terms for her to pay off the arrears over 98 years without specifying the sale of the house.

  • Bristol & West appealed, arguing that the order was unreasonable. The Judge upheld the order, considering the difficult circumstances Mrs. Ellis faced. Bristol & West's argument was that the repayment periods were too long to be reasonable under the law. Mrs. Ellis argued that 3 to 5 years until the house sale was reasonable, but the court order did not reflect this.

JUDGEMENT

  • Appeal allowed.

COMMENTARY

  • This case underscores the importance of considering the individual circumstances of mortgagors and the discretion that judges have in determining what constitutes a reasonable repayment period under the law.

  • It serves as a reminder that courts may take a compassionate view when dealing with homeowners facing financial challenges and may tailor possession orders accordingly.

Any comments or edits about this case? Get in touch

For Further Study on Bristol & West BS v Ellis

Land Law Notes
987 total pages
1290 purchased

Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridg...

Need instant answers? Our AI exam tutor is here to help.

Ask questions 🙋 Get answers 📔 It's simple 👁️👄👁️

Our AI is educated by the highest scoring students across all subjects and schools. Join hundreds of your peers today.

Get Started

Related Product Samples

These product samples contain the same concepts we cover in this case.

Land LawLeases Notes (77 pages)
Claim every advantage to get a first in law
Land Law Notes
987 total pages
1290 purchased

Land Law notes fully updated for recent exams at Oxford and Cambridg...