Facts
- Alliance & Leicester plc, as mortgagee, sought to recover a debt secured by a legal charge granted by D1.
- D2, D1's spouse, asserted an equitable interest in the property, claiming she did not fully understand the consequences of her consent to the legal charge.
- D2’s assertion created an equitable defense, which prevented the lender from immediately obtaining a possession order.
- In response, Alliance & Leicester pursued a monetary judgment against D1 based on his personal covenant in the mortgage agreement.
- The lender subsequently considered initiating bankruptcy proceedings to recover the outstanding debt.
- The case raised concerns over the relationships and sequencing of remedies, namely possession, monetary judgment, and bankruptcy, available to a mortgagee.
Issues
- Whether a mortgagee may pursue a monetary judgment and bankruptcy proceedings after being prevented from obtaining possession due to an equitable defense.
- Whether pursuing these alternative remedies amounts to an abuse of process.
- Whether possession and monetary judgment claims, as distinct remedies, may be applied concurrently or successively.
Decision
- The Court of Appeal ruled that a mortgagee is entitled to pursue alternative remedies when an equitable defense blocks possession.
- Obtaining a monetary judgment based on a personal covenant was found to be a claim separate from a claim for possession.
- Commencing bankruptcy proceedings after securing monetary judgment, even if it leads to an order of sale, does not constitute an abuse of process.
- The mortgagee is not confined to a single remedy and may use all lawful remedies available until the debt has been satisfied.
- The court affirmed a lender may pursue recovery using any lawful means in whatever order is tactically preferred.
Legal Principles
- A mortgagee may pursue concurrent or successive remedies—such as possession, monetary judgment, and bankruptcy—until the debt is fully satisfied.
- An equitable defense preventing possession does not prevent pursuit of monetary judgment or bankruptcy remedies against the mortgagor.
- The claim for a monetary judgment under a personal covenant is distinct from a claim for possession; the success or failure of one does not preclude the other.
- Commencing bankruptcy proceedings after an unsuccessful possession claim is not an abuse of process, even if it leads to the same ultimate result (sale).
- Legal rights of the mortgagee to recover debt are not restricted by initial setbacks in enforcing security.
Conclusion
The decision in Alliance & Leicester plc v Slayford confirms that a mortgagee may seek alternative remedies—including monetary judgment and bankruptcy—when possession is barred by equitable defense, and such actions do not constitute abuse of process; each remedy is treated as a distinct means of recovery.