Abbey National Plc v Bartholomew

A County Court may lack jurisdiction to determine a mortgage redemption dispute where the total redemption amount exceeds its monetary jurisdiction under section 23(c) of the County Court Act 1984. The parties may nevertheless agree to confer jurisdiction under sections 24(1) and 24(2)(g). In closely connected possession proceedings, the Court of Appeal may adjourn an application for permission to appeal and stay execution temporarily to facilitate an efficient resolution, without deciding the substantive merits of the redemption dispute.

Abbey National Plc obtained a suspended possession order against Makael George Bartholomew, including judgment for arrears, interest and costs. Mr Bartholomew later contracted to sell the mortgaged flat and disputed the mortgagee’s redemption statement, particularly additional product-related charges, legal costs and fees not included in the possession judgment. He also contended that he had made a valid tender which stopped further charges.

The Ilford County Court declined to determine the dispute, considering that the total redemption amount exceeded its jurisdiction, and advised Mr Bartholomew to bring a redemption action in the High Court. He applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. The central issues were whether the County Court had jurisdiction and whether the parties could agree to enable the dispute to be resolved there.

Lord Justice Rix did not determine the substantive validity of the redemption charges or the alleged tender. He dealt with the application on the jurisdictional and case-management issues apparent from the material before the Court.

1. County Court jurisdiction. Subject to his own researches and without assistance from counsel, Rix LJ considered that the County Court judge was probably right that the County Court lacked jurisdiction, as matters then stood, because the total redemption amount exceeded £30,000. The relevant provision was section 23(c) of the County Court Act 1984.
2. Agreement conferring jurisdiction. Rix LJ considered that, if both parties agreed, jurisdiction could be established under sections 24(1) and 24(2)(g) of the Act. The dispute was closely connected with the possession order and the judgment sum. An agreed hearing in the County Court would therefore provide a practical and proportionate route to resolving the dispute.
3. Interim and procedural orders. The application for permission to appeal was adjourned generally with liberty to restore on notice to the respondent. Rix LJ indicated that execution of the possession warrant should be stayed for 28 days after approval of the draft judgment, allowing the parties to consider an agreed County Court determination. He also indicated that, if a High Court redemption action became necessary after the application could not proceed, the mortgagee might face costs risk because the disputed element was substantially smaller than the total redemption amount.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): The application for permission to appeal was adjourned generally with liberty to restore on notice to the respondent. A temporary stay of execution of the possession warrant was indicated.
• Ilford County Court: His Honour Judge Platt declined to determine the redemption dispute, considering that the County Court lacked jurisdiction because the total amount exceeded £30,000, and advised commencement of a redemption action in the High Court.