The use of bridging Finans<\/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: Bir temsilci, m\u00fclk\u00fcn m\u00fclkiyeti konusunda kendi m\u00fcvekkiline kar\u015f\u0131 nas\u0131l dava a\u00e7abilir?<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme\u2019de g\u00f6r\u00fclen ve d\u00f6n\u00fcm noktas\u0131 niteli\u011findeki dava: Menon - Pask Davas\u0131 <\/em>2019 <\/em>EWHC 2611 (Ch) <\/em><\/a>bu uzun s\u00fcredir devam eden ikilemi \u00e7\u00f6zd\u00fc. <\/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 Kredi verenler \u015funlara g\u00fcveniyor: M\u00fclkiyet Hukuku Yasas\u0131 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 ticari<\/a> or tenanted properties. However, if the borrowing individual<\/a> veya developer<\/a> refuses to move out of the property, receivers face immediate legal obstacles. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u0130\u00e7inde Menon - Pask Davas\u0131<\/em>, Mr and Mrs Menon charged their konut<\/a> home in West London<\/a> ...'ye destek<\/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 ve Menon, Pask ve Goode\u2019un ortak sabit masraf al\u0131c\u0131lar\u0131 s\u0131fat\u0131yla hareket ederek\u2026 v Menon ve 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 Yarg\u0131\u00e7 Mann, bor\u00e7lular\u0131n temyiz ba\u015fvurusunu reddederek, modern tasfiye i\u015flemlerinin uygulanmas\u0131na ili\u015fkin net kurallar belirlemi\u015ftir. Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme, bu uyu\u015fmazl\u0131\u011f\u0131 iki temel hukuki kavram\u0131 kullanarak \u00e7\u00f6z\u00fcme kavu\u015fturmu\u015ftur: <\/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 Oysa Menon - Pask Davas\u0131<\/em> Kredi verenler i\u00e7in se\u00e7enekleri geni\u015fletmenin yan\u0131 s\u0131ra, bireysel konut kredisi alanlar i\u00e7in de hayati \u00f6nem ta\u015f\u0131yan bir koruma \u00f6nlemi getirmi\u015ftir. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Mahkeme, bir bor\u00e7lunun \u015funa dayan\u0131p dayanamayaca\u011f\u0131n\u0131 de\u011ferlendirmi\u015ftir: 1970 tarihli Adalet \u0130daresi Kanunu\u2019nun 36. maddesi<\/a> bir tasfiye memuru taraf\u0131ndan a\u00e7\u0131lan m\u00fclkiyet devri davas\u0131n\u0131 ertelemek veya ask\u0131ya almak. Tarihsel olarak, bu koruma yaln\u0131zca do\u011frudan bir ipotek alacakl\u0131s\u0131<\/em> (kredi veren). <\/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 \u015eu davadaki karar: Menon - Pask Davas\u0131<\/em> k\u00f6pr\u00fc finansman\u0131 sekt\u00f6r\u00fcnde ticari fayda ile t\u00fcketici korumas\u0131n\u0131 dengeler. Temsilcilik paradoksunu \u00e7\u00f6zerek, tasfiye memurlar\u0131n\u0131n teminat\u0131n de\u011ferini ger\u00e7ekle\u015ftirmek amac\u0131yla m\u00fclk\u00fc i\u015fgal eden bor\u00e7lulara m\u00fclkiyet hakk\u0131 talebiyle do\u011frudan dava a\u00e7abilece\u011fini teyit eder. <\/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>\u00a0veya 0203 947 8892 numaral\u0131 telefondan ula\u015fabilirsiniz.<\/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\tGe\u00e7ici Finansman S\u00fcrecinde \u0130flas \u0130daresinin \u0130\u015fleyi\u015fi <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Ger\u00e7ekler ve \u201cAjans Paradoksu\u201d Menon - Pask Davas\u0131<\/em> <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Y\u00fcksek Mahkeme\u2019nin Karar\u0131: Ticari Etkinlik ve Dava Yetkisi <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Kendi Adlar\u0131na Dava Edildiler<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Temel \u0130\u015f Etkinlik Testi<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Bor\u00e7lular \u0130\u00e7in Umut I\u015f\u0131\u011f\u0131: 36. Madde\u2019deki Takdir Yetkisi <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Kredi Anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131n\u0131 \u00c7\u00f6zmeye Y\u00f6nelik Pratik Stratejiler <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Kredi Verenler ve Al\u0131c\u0131lar \u0130\u00e7in Stratejiler<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
Bor\u00e7lular ve Kefiller \u0130\u00e7in Stratejiler<\/strong> <\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
\n
\u00d6zet <\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Ge\u00e7ici Kredi Anla\u015fmazl\u0131klar\u0131 Avukat\u0131, Ben Lewis \u2013 Bize Ula\u015f\u0131n <\/h2>\n\n\n\n