Paddington BS v Mendelsohn (1985) 50 P & CR 244

Facts

  • Paddington Building Society (the mortgagee) and Mendelsohn (the mortgagor) were parties to a mortgage agreement concerning the occupation of property.
  • A dispute arose regarding the mortgagor’s continued occupation of the mortgaged property and whether this occupation was adverse to the mortgagee’s interest.
  • The mortgage agreement did not explicitly state whether the occupier’s presence was permissive or adverse.
  • The issue centered on whether implied consent by the mortgagee could be inferred due to the nature of the mortgage arrangement and the occupier's conduct.
  • The legal question was brought before the Court of Appeal, which evaluated the relevance of implied consent within the framework of adverse possession and mortgage agreements.

Issues

  1. Whether the mortgagor's continued occupation of the mortgaged property could be deemed adverse possession in the absence of the mortgagee's explicit consent.
  2. Whether implied consent from the mortgagee, arising from the terms of the mortgage agreement and the parties’ conduct, could negate the “adverse” character needed to establish adverse possession.
  3. Whether the occupation was sufficiently hostile to the mortgagee’s interests to constitute adverse possession.
  4. What legal implications the mortgagor’s occupation under a mortgage agreement has for both mortgagees and mortgagors regarding claims of adverse possession.

Decision

  • The court held that the mortgagor’s possession of the property was not adverse to the mortgagee, as it was consistent with the rights granted under the mortgage agreement.
  • The mortgagor’s occupation was found to be with the implied consent of the mortgagee, negating any claim of adverse possession.
  • The Court of Appeal clarified that implied consent may be inferred in mortgage agreements unless the occupation is inconsistent or hostile to the mortgagee’s interest.
  • The decision emphasized the necessity to examine the terms of the mortgage and the conduct of the parties when determining the presence or absence of implied consent.

Legal Principles

  • Adverse possession requires occupation that is exclusive, continuous, and without the owner’s permission; specifically, it must be adverse, not permissive.
  • Implied consent can arise from the circumstances or relationship between the parties, especially in mortgage agreements.
  • Possession consistent with a mortgage agreement is not hostile and therefore does not fulfill the hostility requirement for adverse possession.
  • The distinction between permissive and adverse possession is essential in determining the validity of an adverse possession claim, particularly in property subject to a mortgage.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal’s decision in Paddington BS v Mendelsohn established that occupancy under a mortgage agreement, even if not expressly authorized, will generally be treated as with the mortgagee’s implied consent and thus cannot be considered adverse. This precedent highlights the need to scrutinize the relationship and relevant agreements between parties in adverse possession disputes and clarifies the position of both mortgagees and mortgagors regarding permissive versus adverse occupation.

The answers, solutions, explanations, and written content provided on this page represent PastPaperHero's interpretation of academic material and potential responses to given questions. These are not guaranteed to be the only correct or definitive answers or explanations. Alternative valid responses, interpretations, or approaches may exist. If you believe any content is incorrect, outdated, or could be improved, please get in touch with us and we will review and make necessary amendments if we deem it appropriate. As per our terms and conditions, PastPaperHero shall not be held liable or responsible for any consequences arising. This includes, but is not limited to, incorrect answers in assignments, exams, or any form of testing administered by educational institutions or examination boards, as well as any misunderstandings or misapplications of concepts explained in our written content. Users are responsible for verifying that the methods, procedures, and explanations presented align with those taught in their respective educational settings and with current academic standards. While we strive to provide high-quality, accurate, and up-to-date content, PastPaperHero does not guarantee the completeness or accuracy of our written explanations, nor any specific outcomes in academic understanding or testing, whether formal or informal.
No resources available.

Job & Test Prep on a Budget

Compare PastPaperHero's subscription offering to the wider market

PastPaperHero
Monthly Plan
$10
Assessment Day
One-time Fee
$20-39
Job Test Prep
One-time Fee
$90-350

Note the above prices are approximate and based on prices listed on the respective websites as of May 2025. Prices may vary based on location, currency exchange rates, and other factors.

Get unlimited access to thousands of practice questions, flashcards, and detailed explanations. Save over 90% compared to one-time courses while maintaining the flexibility to learn at your own pace.

All-in-one Learning Platform

Everything you need to master your assessments and job tests in one place

  • Comprehensive Content

    Access thousands of fully explained questions and cases across multiple subjects

  • Visual Learning

    Understand complex concepts with intuitive diagrams and flowcharts

  • Focused Practice

    Prepare for assessments with targeted practice materials and expert guidance

  • Personalized Learning

    Track your progress and focus on areas where you need improvement

  • Affordable Access

    Get quality educational resources at a fraction of traditional costs

Tell Us What You Think

Help us improve our resources by sharing your experience

Pleased to share that I have successfully passed the SQE1 exam on 1st attempt. With SQE2 exempted, I’m now one step closer to getting enrolled as a Solicitor of England and Wales! Would like to thank my seniors, colleagues, mentors and friends for all the support during this grueling journey. This is one of the most difficult bar exams in the world to undertake, especially alongside a full time job! So happy to help out any aspirant who may be reading this message! I had prepared from the University of Law SQE Manuals and the AI powered MCQ bank from PastPaperHero.

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Saptarshi Chatterjee

Senior Associate at Trilegal