Cavalier attitude leads to civil restraint order
Where a party’s behaviour indicates an intention to re-litigate matters previously struck out and to frustrate the other party’s rights, the court will step in to avoid further costs and court time being wasted and grant a civil restraint order.
In JL Homes Ltd v Mortgage Express, Diakiw and Heap (acting as LPA receivers), the court did just that. The claimant owned six buy-to-let properties mortgaged to Mortgage Express. Arrears accrued, LPA receivers were appointed and possession orders were made in relation to five of the properties.
The claimant had alleged the LPA receivers had been wrongly appointed (despite the mortgage arrears and the fact the tenants in the properties had not been consented to) and made a number of other claims that the court also held were without foundation…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
If you think that the Housing Grants Act makes payment (or not) clear, keep reading for the latest case...
You may be forgiven for thinking that as of 27 February 2015, the Housing Grants, Construction and Regeneration Act 1996 (the Act), has little effect in terms of its payment and adjudication provisions.
Arnold J does battle again with the complexities of European Trade Mark law in a dispute about the trademark SUPREME for foodstuffs for rabbits and other small animals.