header-logo header-logo

09 September 2016
Issue: 7713 / Categories: Case law , Judicial line , In Court
printer mail-detail

Keeping mortgagees in the loop

What is the practical point in the applicant to a charging order application having to serve the mortgagee with notice of the final charging order application hearing? It seems to me that applicants are needlessly being required to take this step as well as having to serve other judgment creditors who have already obtained charging orders against the judgment debtor and secured an appropriate entry on the land register. Whether centralisation of charging order applications will see an end to this practice remains to be seen.

Centralisation will not make any difference: any creditor who is identified in the application notice or the court directs is to be served must be served and the mortgagee is such a creditor will be identified. Service makes sense. It warns the mortgagee that the judgment debtor is possibly in financial trouble and thereby gives them an opportunity to take steps to protect their security. It also enables them to consider buying out a subsequent mortgagee where the property is in negative equity and the housing market

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll