Mortgage Express, which has appointed receivers over 54 bought-to-let properties, has won a key battle in its fight to fend off a high court claim from their legal owners that they have breached contract by failing to return them.
Deputy Judge Mark Cawson QC rejected Jacob Jumani and Bilal Tariq’s claim to a legally enforceable agreement which they alleged was made at a meeting in February 2009 to the effect that some or all of the properties would be returned to them if arrears were cleared.
Jumani and Tariq alleged that both Mortgage Express and chartered surveyors Walker Singleton, employers of receivers Stephen Molloy and David Heap, were in breach of contract but, in a preliminary hearing, the judge ruled that no contract was created at the meeting.
He said: “The question posed by the preliminary issue is whether a legally enforceable oral agreement was made between the claimants or either of them and the defendants or either of them as alleged by the Claimants. In view of my findings, I am bound to answer that question in the negative.”
He said that he was satisfied that there may have been discussion on 26 February 2009 with regard to the return of properties out of receivership to Mr Jumani and Mr Tariq, against the background of an agreement that Mr Jumani should lend his assistance towards affecting repairs to the properties and securing lettings for them.
He was also satisfied that the discussions took place with a view to achieving a common aim or goal of reducing and eliminating the arrears on the relevant properties.
But he continued: “Looking at the matter objectively in the light of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that it was intended, or that Mr Jumani or Mr Tariq believed, that Mortgage Express or Walker Singleton had, or intended to become contractually bound to return a property or properties to either of them in any particular circumstances, or that a binding agreement to that effect was concluded as alleged.”
Jumani and Tariq had sought damages for breach of contract and an order for possession and control of the properties charged to Mortgage Express, over which it appointed receivers in 2008 and 2009 as a result of mortgage arrears. Jumani owns 31 of the properties and Tariq the remaining 23, all bought to let with the benefit of mortgages from Mortgage Express.
Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton emphatically denied the existence of any contract, and Mortgage Express has commenced its own proceedings against Jumani.
Jumani and anr v Mortgage Express and anr Chancery (Deputy Judge Mark Cawson QC) 17 May 2013
Michael Hartman (instructed under the Public Access Scheme) for the Claimants
Benjamin Wood (instructed by Drydens, Solicitors) for the First Defendant
Eva Ferguson (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP, Solicitors) for the Second Defendant
Mortgage Express, which has appointed receivers over 54 bought-to-let properties, has won a key battle in its fight to fend off a high court claim from their legal owners that they have breached contract by failing to return them. Deputy Judge Mark Cawson QC rejected Jacob Jumani and Bilal Tariq’s claim to a legally enforceable agreement which they alleged was made at a meeting in February 2009 to the effect that some or all of the properties would be returned to them if arrears were cleared. Jumani and Tariq alleged that both Mortgage Express and chartered surveyors Walker Singleton, employers of receivers Stephen Molloy and David Heap, were in breach of contract but, in a preliminary hearing, the judge ruled that no contract was created at the meeting. He said: “The question posed by the preliminary issue is whether a legally enforceable oral agreement was made between the claimants or either of them and the defendants or either of them as alleged by the Claimants. In view of my findings, I am bound to answer that question in the negative.” He said that he was satisfied that there may have been discussion on 26 February 2009 with regard to the return of properties out of receivership to Mr Jumani and Mr Tariq, against the background of an agreement that Mr Jumani should lend his assistance towards affecting repairs to the properties and securing lettings for them. He was also satisfied that the discussions took place with a view to achieving a common aim or goal of reducing and eliminating the arrears on the relevant properties. But he continued: “Looking at the matter objectively in the light of the evidence before me, I am not persuaded that it was intended, or that Mr Jumani or Mr Tariq believed, that Mortgage Express or Walker Singleton had, or intended to become contractually bound to return a property or properties to either of them in any particular circumstances, or that a binding agreement to that effect was concluded as alleged.” Jumani and Tariq had sought damages for breach of contract and an order for possession and control of the properties charged to Mortgage Express, over which it appointed receivers in 2008 and 2009 as a result of mortgage arrears. Jumani owns 31 of the properties and Tariq the remaining 23, all bought to let with the benefit of mortgages from Mortgage Express. Mortgage Express and Walker Singleton emphatically denied the existence of any contract, and Mortgage Express has commenced its own proceedings against Jumani. Jumani and anr v Mortgage Express and anr Chancery (Deputy Judge Mark Cawson QC) 17 May 2013Michael Hartman (instructed under the Public Access Scheme) for the ClaimantsBenjamin Wood (instructed by Drydens, Solicitors) for the First DefendantEva Ferguson (instructed by DAC Beachcroft LLP, Solicitors) for the Second Defendant
