## Facts

- The dispute involved Western Bank Ltd (the lender/mortgagee) seeking to enforce its right to possession of property against Schindler (the borrower/mortgagor) following default under a mortgage agreement.
- The mortgagor argued for equitable relief to delay or prevent repossession, citing an ability to repay the debt or rectify the default.
- The case required the Court of Appeal to address the scope and limits of a lender’s right to possession and the conditions under which a borrower might obtain equitable intervention.

## Issues

1. Whether a mortgagee’s right to possession upon default is absolute, or subject to equitable considerations.
2. Under what circumstances a mortgagor may be granted equitable relief to delay or prevent repossession.
3. What principles should guide the court’s discretion in granting or refusing equitable relief in mortgage cases.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal held that a mortgagee's right to possession is fundamental but not absolute and may be limited by equitable considerations.
- Equitable relief to delay or prevent possession is discretionary and depends on the facts, including the borrower’s financial situation and the conduct of both parties.
- The court clarified that a mortgagor seeking relief must demonstrate a genuine ability to repay the debt or remedy the default.
- Judicial discretion should balance the rights and interests of both lender and borrower, ensuring fairness and avoiding oppressive or unconscionable lender actions.

## Legal Principles

- The right to possession forms an essential part of the security interest that a mortgage provides, but it must be exercised reasonably and in good faith.
- Equitable relief is not automatic; it is at the court’s discretion, considering factors such as likelihood of repayment and fairness.
- Both lender and borrower must act reasonably, with lenders needing to justify their actions and borrowers expected to address their obligations promptly.
- The discretionary and fact-sensitive nature of equitable intervention seeks to prevent undue hardship while protecting the lender’s security.

## Conclusion

Western Bank Ltd v Schindler [1976] 2 All ER 394 established that while a mortgagee’s right to possession is central to mortgage law, it is subject to equitable relief in appropriate circumstances where justice and fairness so require; this balance ensures that both lender and borrower rights are protected in repossession proceedings.