Tweet
Wiemer v Redstone Mortgages [2014] EWCA Civ 81 (24 January 2014)
More...
LORD JUSTICE LEWISON: 1. In September 2006, Mr Wiemer borrowed money from Beacon Homes limited to enable him to complete the purchase of Flat 19 Tolchurch, Dartmouth Close, London W11. The amount of the advance was £224,995. That money was used to pay off a prior mortgage, and on 10 November 2006 Mr Wiemer executed a mortgage in favour of Beacon Homes to secure the advance plus interest.
The terms of the Beacon Homes loan mortgage conditions were incorporated into the charge. Those terms required repayment of the advance by the end of the mortgage term and entitled the mortgagee to accelerate repayment of the principal sum in certain events. The mechanism for accelerating the advance was by making a demand. Conditions H81 and H83 provided that notice could be given at Mr Wiemer's contact address, and if it was, then there was a provision about deemed service. "Contact address" was defined as the property (that is to say the mortgaged property) or, if different, "the latest address in England and Wales you have notified to us in writing as where you usually live".
Under the terms of a preexisting arrangement, all Beacon Homes' rights and remedies under the mortgage were transferred to Redstone Mortgages Ltd, the claimant. Redstone alleged that Mr Wiemer was in breach of the mortgage conditions and that it was therefore entitled to accelerate repayment of the loan. In paragraph 28 of its Particulars of Claim dated 5 July 2010, it pleaded a demand dated 17 March 2010. Mr Wiemer's pleaded case denied that he had ever received it, but he advanced no positive case to support the denial.
LORD JUSTICE LEWISON: 1. In September 2006, Mr Wiemer borrowed money from Beacon Homes limited to enable him to complete the purchase of Flat 19 Tolchurch, Dartmouth Close, London W11. The amount of the advance was £224,995. That money was used to pay off a prior mortgage, and on 10 November 2006 Mr Wiemer executed a mortgage in favour of Beacon Homes to secure the advance plus interest.
The terms of the Beacon Homes loan mortgage conditions were incorporated into the charge. Those terms required repayment of the advance by the end of the mortgage term and entitled the mortgagee to accelerate repayment of the principal sum in certain events. The mechanism for accelerating the advance was by making a demand. Conditions H81 and H83 provided that notice could be given at Mr Wiemer's contact address, and if it was, then there was a provision about deemed service. "Contact address" was defined as the property (that is to say the mortgaged property) or, if different, "the latest address in England and Wales you have notified to us in writing as where you usually live".
Under the terms of a preexisting arrangement, all Beacon Homes' rights and remedies under the mortgage were transferred to Redstone Mortgages Ltd, the claimant. Redstone alleged that Mr Wiemer was in breach of the mortgage conditions and that it was therefore entitled to accelerate repayment of the loan. In paragraph 28 of its Particulars of Claim dated 5 July 2010, it pleaded a demand dated 17 March 2010. Mr Wiemer's pleaded case denied that he had ever received it, but he advanced no positive case to support the denial.
