The use of bridging Finanzen<\/a> has grown significantly, offering Eigenschaft<\/a> developers, investors, and homeowners<\/a> quick access to liquidity. However, because bridging loans feature short maturities and high interest rates, they also experience a high rate of default. When a borrower fails to exit the facility on time, bridging lenders typically bypass lengthy court channels and immediately appoint Fixed Charge or Law of Property Act (LPA<\/a>) receivers to seize and sell the secured property. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Historically, an operational paradox slowed down this enforcement<\/a> route when dealing with owner-occupied properties. Under standard<\/a> mortgage terms, receivers are legally designated as the agents of the borrower to protect the lender from liability. This created a difficult legal question: Wie kann ein Beauftragter seinen eigenen Auftraggeber auf Herausgabe der Immobilie verklagen?<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Der wegweisende Fall vor dem High Court von Menon gegen Pask <\/em>2019 <\/em>EWHC 2611 (Ch) <\/em><\/a>hat dieses seit langem bestehende Dilemma gel\u00f6st. <\/p>\n\n\n\n To understand the importance<\/a> of the Menon v Pask decision, it helps to review why lenders prefer using receivers in bridging disputes. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When a borrower defaults<\/a> on a bridging loan<\/a>, the lender’s main goal is to recover their capital as quickly as possible. Selling a property with tenants or the owner still living inside reduces its market value and delays<\/a> the transaction. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Kreditgeber verlassen sich auf die Gesetz \u00fcber das Eigentumsrecht 1925<\/a> and express mortgage terms to appoint receivers. This approach provides distinct advantages<\/a>: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The system works smoothly for kommerziell<\/a> or tenanted properties. However, if the borrowing individual<\/a> oder developer<\/a> refuses to move out of the property, receivers face immediate legal obstacles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Unter Menon gegen Pask<\/em>, Mr and Mrs Menon charged their Wohnen<\/a> home in West London<\/a> zu Unterst\u00fctzung<\/a> a business<\/a> loan facility. When the facility defaulted, the lender appointed joint fixed charge receivers to take control of the asset. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Because the Menons remained in the house, the receivers initiated possession proceedings in the County Court. Due to standard industry<\/a> practices at the time, the claim was originally filed as: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cMenon und Menon, vertreten durch Pask und Goode als gemeinsame Konkursverwalter f\u00fcr die festen Kosten \u2026 gegen Menon und Menon.\u201d<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n This meant the borrowers, via<\/a> their legal agents, were technically suing themselves for possession. The Menons defended the action using two main arguments: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The County Court rejected these defences, prompting the borrowers to appeal<\/a> to the High Court. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Richter Mann wies die Berufung der Kreditnehmer zur\u00fcck und legte damit klare Regeln f\u00fcr die moderne Zwangsvollstreckung im Rahmen eines Insolvenzverfahrens fest. Der High Court kl\u00e4rte den Rechtsstreit anhand von zwei zentralen Rechtskonzepten: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court held that filing a claim where the borrower effectively sues themselves is procedurally incorrect. Instead, receivers are entitled to bring possession proceedings against a borrower in their own names. This separation<\/a> solves the procedural<\/a> conflict<\/a> while respecting the receiver’s statutory<\/a> and contractual duties. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The court looked beyond strict agency rules to examine the commercial purpose of the underlying mortgage deed<\/a>. Mr Justice Mann explained that the right of a receiver to take possession arises because: <\/p>\n\n\n\n The judgment confirmed that a receiver does not need a formal property estate to claim possession. They only need a contractually supported better right to possession than the borrower, which takes<\/a> effect the moment the underlying security becomes enforceable. <\/p>\n\n\n\n W\u00e4hrend Menon gegen Pask<\/em> Neben verbesserten M\u00f6glichkeiten f\u00fcr Kreditgeber f\u00fchrte es auch einen wichtigen Schutz f\u00fcr private Wohnungsbaukreditnehmer ein. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Das Gericht pr\u00fcfte, ob sich ein Kreditnehmer auf Abschnitt 36 des Gesetzes \u00fcber die Justizverwaltung von 1970<\/a> um ein von einem Insolvenzverwalter eingeleitetes Zwangsvollstreckungsverfahren zu verz\u00f6gern oder auszusetzen. In der Vergangenheit galt dieser Schutz nur f\u00fcr Klagen, die direkt von einem Hypothekengl\u00e4ubiger<\/em> (der Kreditgeber). <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mr Justice Mann ruled that Section 36 does apply to possession claims<\/a> brought by receivers. The court decided that a receiver acts as a vehicle for enforcing<\/a> the lender’s property rights. <\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, an individual residential borrower can ask the court to adjourn, suspend, or stay a possession order if they can demonstrate a realistic plan to pay off the loan or clear the arrears<\/a> within a reasonable timeframe. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Die Entscheidung in Menon gegen Pask<\/em> schafft im Bereich der \u00dcberbr\u00fcckungsfinanzierung ein Gleichgewicht zwischen wirtschaftlichem Nutzen und Verbraucherschutz. Durch die Aufl\u00f6sung des \u201eAgency-Paradoxons\u201c wird best\u00e4tigt, dass Insolvenzverwalter die im Objekt wohnenden Kreditnehmer direkt auf Herausgabe verklagen k\u00f6nnen, um die zugrunde liegende Sicherheit zu verwerten. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, extending Section 36 protections<\/a> to these actions ensure individual borrowers retain a legal tool to save their properties if they can present a viable financial exit. Navigating these disputes requires clear documentation, proper procedural filings, and an understanding<\/a> of mortgage litigation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Ben Lewis is an Associate Solicitor in RFB\u2019s Litigation department. For\u00a0enquiries on this topic, please contact<\/a> Ben Lewis via email at\u00a0B.Lewis@rfblegal.co.uk<\/a>\u00a0oder unter der Telefonnummer 0203 947 8892.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":9932,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[20],"tags":[81],"class_list":["post-9931","insight","type-insight","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-property-litigation","tag-litigation-team-dj"],"acf":[],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\tDie Funktionsweise der Zwangsverwaltung bei \u00dcberbr\u00fcckungsfinanzierungen <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Die Fakten und das \u201cAgentur-Paradoxon\u201d in Menon gegen Pask<\/em> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Das Urteil des High Court: Wirtschaftliche Wirksamkeit und Klagebefugnis <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
In ihrem eigenen Namen verklagt<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Der Wirksamkeitstest f\u00fcr das Kerngesch\u00e4ft<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Der Lichtblick f\u00fcr Kreditnehmer: Ermessensspielraum gem\u00e4\u00df \u00a7 36 <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Praktische Strategien zur Beilegung von Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit \u00dcberbr\u00fcckungskrediten <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategien f\u00fcr Kreditgeber und Kreditnehmer<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Strategien f\u00fcr Kreditnehmer und B\u00fcrgen<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Zusammenfassung <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Anwalt f\u00fcr Streitigkeiten im Zusammenhang mit \u00dcberbr\u00fcckungskrediten, Ben Lewis \u2013 Kontaktieren Sie uns <\/h2>\n\n\n\n