header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 March 2021 / Cecily Crampin , Tricia Hemans
Issue: 7927 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

Mortgage receivership: transfer challenges

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
44716
Post-Maymask, Cecily Crampin & Tricia Hemans consider the effect of mortgage receivership on company directors’ powers to deal with property
  • Ghai v Maymask (228) Ltd [2020] UKUT 293 (LC): does the appointment of a receiver act to suspend the director of a company borrower’s authority to effect a valid sale of the property so that only the receiver can sell or so that the borrower can only sell with the receiver’s consent?

In a typical sale of mortgaged property, the owner of the property sells it to a buyer in his own name and then uses the purchase money provided by the buyer to pay off the mortgage so that the property acquired by the buyer is free of the mortgage. But what about the situation where a receiver has been appointed before the sale? Does the borrower retain the ability to execute a valid transfer to the buyer?

It is clear that the borrower has a power of sale by reason of his ownership of and registration

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll