| 词条 | Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc |
| 释义 |
|name = Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland |court = Court of Appeal |image = Bid hammer.jpg |caption = |full name = Silven Properties Ltd. & Anor v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & Ors |date decided = {{Start date|2003|10|21|df=y}} |citations = [2003] EWCA Civ 1409, [2004] 4 All ER 484 |transcripts = |judges = Aldous LJ, Tuckey LJ, Lightman J |number of judges = 3 |decision by = Lightman J |concurring = |dissenting = |concur/dissent = |prior actions = |appealed from = |appealed to = |subsequent actions = |related actions = |opinions = |keywords = Mortgage; arrears; repossession; reasonableness in conduct of sale |italic title = }}{{cite bailii|litigants=Silven Properties Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland|year=2003|court=EWCA|division=Civ|num=1409}} is an English land law case, concerning the behaviour of receivers appointed under mortgages. It affirmed the proposition that a lender (and its agents or receivers) are not required to incur expenses that would likely delay a sale beyond the normal period of marketing. FactsIn 1996, Royal Bank of Scotland (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. JudgmentLightman 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.
ImpactSilven'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: {{quotation|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{{Clist mortgages}}{{Clist receivership}}
References1. ^Silven, par. 16 2. ^Silven, par. 17 3. ^Silven, par. 18 4. ^{{cite BAILII|litigants= Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Company Ltd.|link=|court=EWCA|division=Civ|year=2003|num=1559|para=|eucase=|parallelcite= [2004] 1 All ER (Comm) 904|date=7 November 2003|courtname=|juris=}} 5. ^Meftah v Lloyd's TSB Bank Plc, [2001] 2 AER (Comm) 741 Further reading
7 : English land case law|Court of Appeal of England and Wales cases|2003 in England|2003 in case law|Mortgage industry of the United Kingdom|2003 in British law|Royal Bank of Scotland Group litigation |
| 随便看 |
|
开放百科全书收录14589846条英语、德语、日语等多语种百科知识，基本涵盖了大多数领域的百科知识，是一部内容自由、开放的电子版国际百科全书。