The use of bridging finanza<\/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: In che modo un agente pu\u00f2 citare in giudizio il proprio mandante per ottenere il possesso dell'immobile?<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Il caso storico della Corte Suprema relativo a Menon contro Pask <\/em>2019 <\/em>EWHC 2611 (Ch) <\/em><\/a>ha risolto questo dilemma di lunga data. <\/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 Gli istituti di credito si affidano al Legge sulla propriet\u00e0 del 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 commerciale<\/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 In Menon contro Pask<\/em>, Mr and Mrs Menon charged their residenziale<\/a> home in West London<\/a> a supporto<\/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 e Menon, rappresentati da Pask e Goode in qualit\u00e0 di curatori congiunti per le spese fisse\u2026 contro Menon e 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 Il giudice Mann ha respinto il ricorso dei mutuatari, stabilendo regole chiare per l'esecuzione delle procedure di amministrazione controllata moderne. L'Alta Corte ha risolto la controversia avvalendosi di due concetti giuridici principali: <\/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 Mentre Menon contro Pask<\/em> Oltre a rafforzare le opzioni a disposizione dei finanziatori, ha anche introdotto una tutela fondamentale per i mutuatari privati di immobili residenziali. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Il tribunale ha valutato se un mutuatario potesse fare affidamento su Articolo 36 della legge sull'amministrazione della giustizia del 1970<\/a> per ritardare o sospendere i procedimenti di espropriazione avviati da un curatore fallimentare. Storicamente, tale tutela si applicava solo alle azioni intentate direttamente da un creditore ipotecario<\/em> (il creditore). <\/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 decisione in Menon contro Pask<\/em> concilia l'utilit\u00e0 commerciale con la tutela dei consumatori nel settore dei finanziamenti ponte. Risolvendo il paradosso dell'agenzia, conferma che i curatori fallimentari possono citare direttamente in giudizio i mutuatari occupanti per ottenere il possesso dell'immobile, al fine di realizzare la garanzia sottostante. <\/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 telefonicamente al numero 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\tI meccanismi dell\u2019amministrazione controllata nel finanziamento ponte <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
I fatti e il \u201cparadosso dell\u2019agenzia\u201d in Menon contro Pask<\/em> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
La sentenza dell\u2019Alta Corte: efficacia giuridica e legittimazione ad agire <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Citati in giudizio a titolo personale<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Il test di efficacia delle attivit\u00e0 principali<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Il lato positivo per i mutuatari: la discrezionalit\u00e0 prevista dalla Sezione 36 <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategie pratiche per risolvere le controversie relative ai prestiti ponte <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Strategie per creditori e debitori<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Strategie per mutuatari e garanti<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Sintesi <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Avvocato specializzato in controversie relative ai prestiti ponte, Ben Lewis \u2013 Contattaci <\/h2>\n\n\n\n