A - Agency of receiver
7/10/19
MENON v PASK [2019] EWHC 2611 (Ch)
A power conferred on a receiver by a mortgage contract to take possession of the mortgaged property can be asserted against the mortgagor notwithstanding the receiver’s agency for the mortgagor [27]. The mortgagor is entitled to rely on the court’s powers to postpone possession under s 36 of the Administration of Justice Act 1970 because the receiver derives title from the mortgagee within the meaning of s 39 of the 1970 Act [42].
10/10/12
BICESTER PROPERTIES LTD v WEST BROMWICH COMMERCIAL LTD, (Ch D)
Receivers appointed by the defendant sold a mortgaged property at an alleged undervalue. A claim that the defendant was liable because the receivers had acted as its agents was struck out. It had not been pleaded that the particular conduct of the receivers about which complaint was made had been carried on at the bidding of the lender, nor was there evidence to support such an allegation. The fact that there had been discussions between the lender and receiver was not enough. It is only when discussions move to instructions or where the receiver ceases to exercise an independent discretion that an agency will be found to exist between lender and receiver.
14/5/12
EDENWEST LTD v CMS CAMERON MCKENNA LLP [2012] EWHC 1258 (Ch)
The claimant's insurers repudiated cover for misrepresentation/non-disclosure. The claimant's bankers and proposed administrative receivers took advice from the defendant on the merits of a claim against the brokers who arranged the policy, and following their appointment the receivers assigned the claim for £100,000. The brokers settled a claim by the assignee for far more than £100,000. The claimant alleged the defendant's advice on the merits of the claim had been negligent and claimed damages on the basis that the defendant had owed it a duty of care directly or through the agency of the receivers. The defendant was granted summary judgment dismissing the claim. The defendant had been instructed by the receivers in their own name, not on behalf of the claimant. The fact that the receivers were agents of the claimant and the advice concerned the claimant's assets was not enough to establish a contractual retainer. Nor did a duty of care exist in tort following Raja v Austin Gray.