header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
31 October 2019 / Caroline Shea KC , Gavin Bennison
Issue: 7862 / Categories: Features , Property
printer mail-detail

The (messy) law of receivership

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
Caroline Shea QC & Gavin Bennison help unravel the complex triage that is receivers, agency & possession
  • The position pre-Menon: the facts.
  • The decision in Menon.
  • Reflection and practical implications.

The law of receivership can be fiendishly difficult to make sense of. That is not just an academic issue: the ‘messiness’ of receivership creates daily challenges for lawyers acting for and against receivers in the courts. Often, cases that ought to be routine and straightforward become bogged down in legal argument.

Thankfully, on 7 October 2019 Mr Justice Mann made things a lot easier for practitioners by resolving one of the biggest issues in the law of receivership: can a receiver who is appointed under a mortgage of property owned by an individual mortgagor claim possession of the property from that individual by suing in his or her own name as receiver? The case was Menon & Menon v Pask & Goode [2019] EWHC 2611 (Ch), [2019] All ER (D)

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
Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Policing the safeguards when appointing trust corporations
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
NLJ this week: What the court considers when assessing refusal of ADR
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
NLJ this week: Finding innovative ways to fund the justice gap
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
NLJ this week: Two’s company, but three’s a crowd in financial provision cases
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
Charities Appeals Supplement: March 2026
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll