The use of bridging finanzas<\/a> has grown significantly, offering property 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: \u00bfC\u00f3mo puede un agente demandar a su propio mandante para reclamar la posesi\u00f3n del inmueble?<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n El caso hist\u00f3rico del Tribunal Superior de Menon contra Pask <\/em>2019 <\/em>EWHC 2611 (Ch) <\/em><\/a>ha resuelto este dilema que se ven\u00eda arrastrando desde hac\u00eda tiempo. <\/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 Las entidades crediticias se basan en el Ley de Propiedad de 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 comercial<\/a> or tenanted properties. However, if the borrowing individual<\/a> o developer<\/a> refuses to move out of the property, receivers face immediate legal obstacles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n En Menon contra Pask<\/em>, Mr and Mrs Menon charged their residencial<\/a> home in West London<\/a> a apoyo<\/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 y Menon, representados por Pask y Goode en calidad de administradores conjuntos de la masa de la deuda fija\u2026 contra Menon y Menon\u201d.\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 El juez Mann desestim\u00f3 el recurso de los prestatarios y estableci\u00f3 unas normas claras para la ejecuci\u00f3n de la administraci\u00f3n judicial en la actualidad. El Tribunal Superior resolvi\u00f3 el litigio bas\u00e1ndose en dos conceptos jur\u00eddicos fundamentales: <\/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 Aunque Menon contra Pask<\/em> Adem\u00e1s de reforzar las opciones para los prestamistas, tambi\u00e9n introdujo una protecci\u00f3n fundamental para los prestatarios particulares de viviendas. <\/p>\n\n\n\n El tribunal examin\u00f3 si un prestatario pod\u00eda invocar Art\u00edculo 36 de la Ley de Administraci\u00f3n de Justicia de 1970<\/a> para retrasar o suspender los procedimientos de ejecuci\u00f3n iniciados por un administrador judicial. Hist\u00f3ricamente, esta protecci\u00f3n solo se aplicaba a las acciones interpuestas directamente por un acreedor hipotecario<\/em> (el prestamista). <\/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 La resoluci\u00f3n en Menon contra Pask<\/em> equilibra el inter\u00e9s comercial con la protecci\u00f3n del consumidor en el sector de la financiaci\u00f3n puente. Al resolver la paradoja de la agencia, confirma que los administradores concursales pueden demandar directamente a los prestatarios ocupantes para recuperar la posesi\u00f3n y ejecutar la garant\u00eda subyacente. <\/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>\u00a0o por tel\u00e9fono en el 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\tEl funcionamiento de la administraci\u00f3n judicial en la financiaci\u00f3n puente <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Los hechos y la \u201cparadoja de la agencia\u201d en Menon contra Pask<\/em> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
La sentencia del Tribunal Superior: eficacia empresarial y legitimaci\u00f3n procesal <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Demandados en su propio nombre<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
La prueba de eficacia del negocio principal<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
El lado positivo para los prestatarios: la facultad discrecional del art\u00edculo 36 <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Estrategias pr\u00e1cticas para resolver conflictos relacionados con los pr\u00e9stamos puente <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Estrategias para prestamistas y deudores<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Estrategias para prestatarios y avalistas<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Resumen <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Abogado especializado en litigios sobre pr\u00e9stamos puente, Ben Lewis \u2013 Ponte en contacto con nosotros <\/h2>\n\n\n\n