Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc

Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland
Court Court of Appeal of England and Wales
Full case name Silven Properties Ltd. & Anor v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & Ors
Decided 21 October 2003 (2003-10-21)
Citation(s) [2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484
Court membership
Judges sitting Aldous LJ, Tuckey LJ, Lightman J
Case opinions
Decision by Lightman J
Keywords
Mortgage

Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland [2003] EWCA Civ 1409 is an English land law case, concerning the behaviour of receivers appointed under mortgages.

Facts

In 1996, RBS appointed receivers over 33 properties mortgaged by Silven Properties to it, and proceeded to sell them off. The receivers explored planning and letting out the properties, but decided to sell them straight away. Silven alleged that RBS’s receivers were under a duty to maximise the value by getting planning permission for development and letting out of vacant properties.

In the Chancery Division, Patten J held that neither the mortgagee nor receiver were required to incur expenses that would likely delay a sale beyond the normal period of marketing. This was supported by the cases of Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance, Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd, and Medforth v Blake.

Judgment

Lightman J held that RBS had not breached its duty. A duty is owed in equity (rather than tort) but it was not breached on the facts.

Impact

Silven's reasoning was also held to apply to other forms of mortgages in Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Company Ltd. which was handed down several days later.[4] As Longmore LJ noted in his ruling:

25. ... These statements of the law cannot be sidestepped by saying, in the case of a moveable chattel such as a ship that the mortgagee has to take care to sell at the place where the best price is available, because to transfer a chattel from one place to another will, inevitably, take time and mean that the sale is deferred. It is entirely different from a case where a short delay is appropriate so that a property can be properly advertised.[5] The position might not be the same in cases where there is no true market for the chattel concerned at the place in which the mortgagee proposes to sell. It might, for example, be inappropriate to sell a valuable picture in Panama rather than in a recognised centre for the marketing of pictures. But, even then, there would be questions about the cost of transport which would have to be resolved....

See also

References

  1. Silven, par. 16
  2. Silven, par. 17
  3. Silven, par. 18
  4. Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Company Ltd. [2003] EWCA Civ 1559, [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 904 (7 November 2003)
  5. Meftah v Lloyd's TSB Bank Plc, [2001] 2 AER (Comm) 741

Further reading

This article is issued from Wikipedia - version of the Tuesday, March 03, 2015. The text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share Alike but additional terms may apply for the media files.