More results...

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
Filter by Categories
Assured Shorthold tenancy
Benefits and care
Housing Conditions
Housing law - All
Introductory and Demoted tenancies
Leasehold and shared ownership
Licences and occupiers
Mortgage possession
Regulation and planning
Trusts and Estoppel
Unlawful eviction and harassment

The Importance of Being Earnest


Santander (UK) Plc v Carlin & Anor [2013] NICh 14

We have seen Santander having trouble in mortgage possession proceedings in Northern Ireland recently. Here is another example which could perhaps, indeed maybe should, have been avoided, if the lender had actually taken proceedings sufficiently seriously.

Mr Carlin was appealing a possession order obtained by Santander on arrears on the mortgage on his property. Mr Carlin sought to appeal on the basis that Santander had assigned the equitable interest in the charge and so could not enforce it. This is, as the NI High Court makes clear here, both a popular challenge for litigants in person and on the whole, a completely hopeless one.

It is clear law, as has been recently reaffirmed by the Court of Appeal in England in Paragon Finance v Pender and Another [2005] 1 W. L. R. 3412 that a legal owner of a charge can part with the equitable interest in it without losing their right to enforce the charge. Therefore, this point in many cases is likely to prove a short-term gain for any borrower because it is simply a matter of the right person establishing that they are entitled to assert what had been agreed between the parties under the mortgage would happen in default of the payments agreed. Nevertheless, it is essential that the court is making an order in favour of the correct party who has the right to enforce a legal charge, as much as any other contract between parties.

However, in the first instance court, Santander had filed an affidavit made by their solicitor, reporting what she had been told about the mortgage, specifically that it had not been assigned. Mr C tried to take a point about hearsay evidence of debts, but was relying on a Dublin judgment where there was no Civil Evidence Order on hearsay evidence, so that went nowhere.

The trouble was that the mortgage had been assigned. This part of the affidavit was simply wrong. The order in the Court below had been “improperly obtained by a misrepresentation to the Court”.  There was no suggestion that the solicitor had lied, but Mr C asserted and indeed the High Court wondered whether someone, who passed information to the solicitor had done so.

So, faced with this situation, an appeal and a clear misrepresentation in their affidavit in the Court below, what did Santander do?

Well, they started by ignoring directions on filing evidence, only filing a rejoinder affidavit 2 days before the hearing.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, Santander didn’t actually bother to get the person who had actually passed the information to the solicitor to file that affidavit. They got the solicitor to file another one.

Referring to Swift Advances plc v James and Maureen McCourt [2012] NI Ch. 33, the Court found:

The judge, and as I have already previously said in this court, wisely in my view, commended the course that the solicitor acting for the financial institution should expressly warn the proposed deponent on behalf of the financial institution of the serious consequences he or she bears personally and the consequences for his or her employer if he or she swears an affidavit that is false in any respect. Next, their solicitor should confirm to the court that the deponent has been so advised before the affidavit is sworn. Thirdly, the deponent on behalf of the financial institution should then swear the affidavit dealing with the plaintiff’s title to seek an order for possession. It is only if some uncertainty is left then that one should go on to deal with applications for specific discovery. So it can be seen here that Santander have further disregarded the decisions of this court because they have not deigned to swear the affidavit themselves but have required Miss Gibson to do it. Now the matter that is set out therein may or may not be right but it seems to me as it contradicts the earlier information on affidavit as it was given to the Master that Mr Carlin is entitled to cross-examine this lady as to whether it is true and perhaps is entitled to further discovery.

And to cap it all, the rejoinder affidavit didn’t actually deal with the circumstances of the earlier ‘error’. So:

Now the court of course recognises that everybody makes errors. They should not make them on affidavits, but at this point I do not know whether this was an honest error, I do not know whether somebody was playing fast and loose with the truth. No explanation of the earlier misstatement is given in the new affidavit. What is certainly the case is that Santander have been in breach of the directions of the court, they have been in breach of the judgment of Swift v McCourt and they obtained an order by at least, as I said earlier, misrepresenting the facts to the Master.

Appeal succeeded and possession order set aside.

Giles Peaker is a solicitor and partner in the Housing and Public Law team at Anthony Gold Solicitors in South London. You can find him on Linkedin and on Twitter. Known as NL round these parts.


  1. common lawni

    we are delighted to have been able to support this lay litigant, [email removed by NL as these are woo merchants]

    • Giles Peaker

      You didn’t. Any woo/freeman on the land style nonsense put forward by Mr Carlin, including the notion that an assigned debt was unenforceable, or the ludicrous attempt to apply an Irish judgment on hearsay, was simply dismissed by the court.

  2. Sid

    Thank you for your informative article.

    I would invite your comments on the following.

    There appears to be a company (which I shall not mention by name for fear of someone succumbing to their claims) claiming that if a lender has sold/transferred your mortgage and it had been paid in full by the original lender as part of the sale/transfer, then the 3rd party to whom it was sold/transferred does not have the Legal and Equitable right to hold a valid charge on your property and you are therefore entitled to have the charge removed.

    The company website states individual cases have to be verified following a subject access request to the lender to confirm whether the mortgage has been ‘securitised’. If so, then it claims it may be possible to have upto 80% of the mortgage set aside.

    Curiously, the company website cites Santander v Carlin & Anor to support its claim. It also says there are various other ‘precedents’ which supports its claims but do not mention the case name or provide any point of reference.

    Are you aware of any cases where the above has been successfully argued?. My search has revealed nothing of the sort.

    Is this likely a fishing expedition by someone attempting to find the next big thing similar to mis-sold ppi, or is this altogether a bold scam.


Leave a Reply (We can't offer advice on individual issues)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.