header-logo header-logo

01 January 2010
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Escape from mortgage covenants

When non-compliance is alleged, can the undertaking be enforced by committal?

When an ancillary relief order recites in its preamble an undertaking to the court to use best endeavours to procure a mortgage release and non-compliance is alleged, can the undertaking be enforced by committal? If not, can an order be made for specific performance with a penal notice being attached?

The court has no greater powers to deal with breach of an undertaking than it has to deal with breach of an order (Gandolfo v Gandolfo (Standard Chartered Bank, Garnishee) [1981] QB 359, CA).

There is no power vested in a court dealing with an ancillary relief application to order a party to procure the other party’s release from mortgage covenants and so the court could not commit for breach of such an undertaking. Nevertheless, the breach of the undertaking would give rise to a cause of action in contract and separate civil proceedings would have to be initiated by the party with the benefit of the undertaking.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

Hugh James—Jonathan Askin

London corporate and commercial team announces partner appointment

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Michelman Robinson—Daniel Burbeary

Firm names partner as London office managing partner

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Kingsley Napley—Jonathan Grimes

Firm appoints new head of criminal litigation team

NEWS
Personal injury lawyers have welcomed a government U-turn on a ‘substantial prejudice’ defence that risked enabling defendants in child sexual abuse civil cases to have proceedings against them dropped
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit
Digital loot may feel like property, but civil law is not always convinced. In NLJ this week, Paul Schwartfeger of 36 Stone and Nadia Latti of CMS examine fraud involving platform-controlled digital assets, from ‘account takeover and asset stripping’ to ‘value laundering’
back-to-top-scroll