ADVOCATOR The Essential & Official LPC Law Magazine

Autumn 2015

£3.00

IMMI-GREAT BRITAIN?

In this issue: Migrant Crisis * Wills * Mortgages * Three Peaks Challenge

Are Migrants Welcome?

Page 2 Advocator

Across

6 Peter carries sweet which is flat.

(7)

7 Ric has mole in hole (5)

9 Loathe cap on energy (4)

10 Rewarding and paying debts

(10)

11 Fat duck forages one mix (4,4)

13 Handel broke no harp to fund

one of these (6)

15 Challenge from devils are rarely

easy (4)

17 Garments kids would say are

rubbish (5)

18 Steam drops a support (4)

19 Dizzy town crier loses con

author (6)

20 Fundamental misreading of

metric system without clause

(8)

23 Denomination who can alter

thinking (10)

26 BACS reversed caused wound

(4)

27 Tiny southern shop (5)

28 No enema needed for this

creature (7)

Down

1 Preceding to shred Entente

Cordiale as Loire annexed

(10)

2 Rewash mucky mooring line

(6)

3 Point to directions, on time

(4)

4 'Cutters start circling in

South Sea!' orders rich sailor.

(8)

5 Boats that could be blue (4)

6 Instrument plays quietly (5)

8 Unnamed spin is dull (7)

12 Offence leads American into

cavity (5)

14 Hold one on acquisition (10)

16 Bald so lose hope within

vacuum (7)

17 Left can be moveable (8)

21 Resign foolish musician (6)

22 How meaningless? A nine?

(5)

24 Tin one could find online? (4)

25 Preacher “I may attend

Mosque” (4)

Find the hidden word and e-mail it to

onedownandtenacross@lpc-law.co.uk for a chance to

win a bottle. Entries must be submitted by 4pm on

20/11/2015 to be counted and will be drawn at random.

Good luck!

Welcome

Welcome to the Autumn edition of Advocator!

After a long ‘summer’, we’re back with the latest in LPC Law news and entertainment.

In this edition, South Eastern Circuit Advocate David Chamberlain considers the application of section 36 in

circumstances where a lender seeks possession at the expiry of the mortgage term or as a result of a non-financial

breach of the mortgage.

Meanwhile, Wales Circuit Advocate,Eve McFadzean looks at the sorry situation at the port of Calais and Assistant

Advocacy Manager Jonathan Hasson reviews the case of Ilott v. Mitson [2011] EWCA Civ 346 wherein the Court

allowed a daughter to recover a part of her mother’s will despite having been previously disinherited.

Advocator also reports on and congratulates Team LPC for completing the ‘Three Peaks’ challenge, Head of Advocacy,

Patrick Le Bas on becoming a father and Laura-Pauline Adcock-Jones on her recent nuptials.

Finally, don’t forget to submit your answer to our prize winning crossword competition and keep your eyes peeled for

some photos of LPC Law’s ‘Legal Update and Business Review’ at various locations across the country.

I hope you enjoy the latest instalment.

Stuart Snow - Editor Alex Othon - Design

Luke Gibson (South Eastern Circuit)

LPC Law Crossword Competition

Autumn 2015 Page 3

Laura-Pauline Adcock-Jones

Advocate

South Eastern Circuit

Everyone knows that I love to plan a party; from the last Christmas party to my own wedding

this summer (see page 6), I knew that it would not be long before I found my next party excuse.

Fortunately, Patrick gave me the perfect opportunity when he announced that he and his wife

Abi were expecting a baby, leaving me to plan LPC’s first ever surprise “Dad-chelor Party”,

which was held on 2 September 2015.

Firstly, let me set the record straight – Patrick did not sit in the middle of a room eating dainty

sandwiches, wearing bows and ribbons on his head and cooing over cute baby onesies.

Instead, he was given beer to drink from a baby bottle, served takeaway pizza and forced to

participate in thirteen baby-orientated games. Patrick was, however, allowed to pick his fellow

participants in each game, which included guessing the chocolate in the dirty nappy, a pram-

relay around the office, blind-tasting of baby food and “giving birth” to a balloon baby using

only hip thrusting.

Thank you to everyone who attended and made the party a truly memorable evening – now we

know just how many songs involve the word “baby” and the answer to “how much practice

does Patrick need before he can be called a nappy-changing pro?” The answer is ... a lot but, at

least he now has had the chance to prepare!

Congratulations to Patrick and Abi on the birth of their baby Theo. Enjoy parenthood and bring

on the next LPC pregnancy!

Going Goo-Goo Ga-Ga For Le Bas

Michael

Javaherian

(above) with

Paul Luukas

and Patrick Le

Bas (right)

attempting to

give birth to

their balloons.

Mind over matter in guessing the chocolate bar in the dirty nappy.

Confusion sets in for

Patrick Le Bas,

Andrew Morgan,

Stuart Snow and

Michael Javaherian in

the nappy changing

game.

Patrick Le Bas,

Jonathan

Shucksmith, Paul

Luukas, Stuart

Snow and

Andrew Morgan

take on the baby

food tasting

contest.

Ros Wilson, Andrew Morgan, Patrick Le Bas, Paul Luukas, and Alex Othon

need winding after taking on the race to drink a beer from a baby bottle

in the quickest time.

migrants attempt to reach Britain

through the French borders. Calais

has been described as a fortress - a

gathering place of shantytowns for

illegal migrants hoping to settle in

Britain. Blame has been placed on

both sides of the border for the

increasingly unstable situation and a

refusal for either country to take

responsibility. This was exacerbated

by a lengthy strike by ferry workers

that began in June. Transport links

were severely disrupted, and

thousands of stranded migrants

were caught in the chaos, some

trying to take advantage of the

situation by breaking into stationary

vehicles as they waited in the

tailbacks. Since then, there have

been numerous reports of migrants

trying to make the crossing either in

vehicles or simply by walking

through the tunnel.

Calais has been portrayed as a major

battleground of the migration crisis,

We have been encouraged to neatly

box the seemingly overwhelming

influx of immigrants into two

categories: economic migrants

causing chaos at Calais, or Syrian

refugees fleeing violence in boats

across the Mediterranean. There

have been regular devastating

reports of migrants losing their lives

in attempts to reach Europe. These

mass deaths have often been

portrayed and viewed as the

consequences of migration, a risky

choice that ambitious individuals

have made. In fact, these deaths are

symptoms of a shocking

humanitarian crisis. A turning point

may have been reached when

images were published in September

of three year old Aylan Kurdi,

washed up dead on a Turkish beach

after his family fled with him from

Syria to seek safety in Europe. The

resulting demonstrations of support

and welcome for migrants across

Europe have been heartening;

however, it seems that there is still

no long-term cohesive plan to deal

with the crisis.

Chaos in Calais

A great deal of attention has been

placed on the events in Calais, as

Page 4 Advocator

A Flood of Foreigners

Recent reports claimed there are

now over 8 million people living in

Britain that were not born here.

According to some newspapers, this

information revealed the shocking

scale of immigration and we were

invited to shake our heads in

disbelief at these ‘foreigners’ taking

over our beloved country. However,

in a surprise move for British media,

there was a distinct lack of context

for this story. Should we be

classifying Boris Johnson (born in

New York) as a migrant desperate to

exploit our economic system? Is

Emma Watson (born in Paris) simply

living here to steal jobs from

genuine British citizens trying to get

into the film business?

It is true that, this year, the number

of migrants attempting to settle in

Europe has reached unprecedented

levels, as hundreds of thousands of

people attempt to leave the Middle

East and North Africa to begin new

lives away from poverty and

violence. However, the media

coverage of the ongoing crisis, and

the role Britain will continue to play,

has been less than clear.

Migrants Welcome?

Britain and the Migration Crisis

been questioned, especially by the

smaller member states that voted

against the implementation of

quotas. Britain has chosen to work in

conjunction with other organisations

such as the UN to resettle migrants

in our country. A government

minister with responsibility for Syrian

refugees has also been appointed.

However, only 216 people have so

far been relocated under Britain’s

dedicated Syrian Vulnerable Persons

scheme, offering a home to the most

needy refugees. As this number of

people could easily fit inside one

Tube train, the statistics do not seem

right.

Conclusion

Europe’s Migration Commissioner

Dimitris Avramapoulos has been said

that Europe is experiencing the

world’s most serious migrant crisis

since the Second World War. But can

any of us, reading this article in the

safety of our homes and workplaces,

truly say we are experiencing this

crisis on any kind of personal or

physical level? Or are we simply

observing as the dramas unfold,

handed to us by the media through

convenient sound bites, heart

w r e n c h i n g p i c t u r e s a n d

scaremongering statistics. British

attitudes towards immigration

continue to fluctuate as the crisis

develops. It takes closer examination

to reveal that the lines between

economic migrants and war refugees

are blurred. The political, economic

and humanitarian origins of this

crisis cannot be simplified, and the

solution may be just as complicated.

Europe to reach refuge. Officially, the

British government has recognised

its moral responsibility to provide aid

to the refugees, reflecting a long

history of taking in those who

require sanctuary. The Prime Minister

has emphasised the need for a

comprehensive approach to the

crisis that tackles the source of the

problem as well as the

consequences . The Br i t i sh

government has announced its

largest ever response to a

humanitarian crisis, pledging over £1

billion of aid to those suffering in

Syria and the neighbouring

countries. As well as the provision of

food, clean water and education, the

British government has said it is

committed to seeking political unity

and resolution of the root of the

tragedy. The Royal Navy has been

involved in the rescue of over 6,700

migrants attempting to cross the

Mediterranean, and it was

announced that 20,000 migrants will

be taken in over the next 5 years.

Undoubtedly there is huge merit in

providing aid in the regions where

the vast majority of those who need

it remain. However, what is surely

required to bring help to migrants

who have been forced to leave their

homes is a united approach from

Europe. Britain is not participating in

the European Union’s plans to

provide relocation to the migrants

that need it most desperately. We

have opted out of new proposals to

enforce the acceptance of quotas of

migrants on member states. The

popularity of the EU policies has

and is typically associated with

economic migrants seeking to take

advantage of a new life in Britain. It

has been questioned whether these

migrants are intending to seek

genuine asylum in Britain, and if so

why they have not done this in

France or the other European

countries they may have passed

through. Britain is often described as

an easy target for economic

migrants when, in reality, asylum

seekers will not be allowed to work

or claim most benefits, and are,

according to the government’s

website, expected to live on around

£5 per day (£36.95 per week). In any

event, according to figures from

August published in the Guardian on

10 August 2015, the migrants at

Calais account for just 1% of those

who have arrived in Europe so far

this year. There is also no firm

evidence to show how many of those

arriving at Calais then progress to

live in Britain, despite various reports

that we are being flooded with

migrants travelling from France.

Humanitarian Crisis

In truth, there is no easy way to

classify migrants; many are seeking a

new life for a whole multitude of

reasons. The other focus of the crisis

has undoubtedly been Syrian

refugees fleeing years of violence

and civil unrest. Families have been

faced with the choice between

staying in their home country, or

leaving everything behind in pursuit

of safety and the hope of building

new lives. This is a postcode lottery

with deadly consequences. It has

been said that 11 million people

have been displaced as a result of

the conflict. Many of those leaving

the war torn region are attempting

to cross the Eastern Mediterranean

from Turkey, then moving through

Page 5 Autumn 2015

Eve McFadzean

Advocate

Wales Circuit

Advocator Page 6

LPC Law Summer Party After what felt like weeks of discussion about how to get there,

and most importantly what would be included in the tab, the first

of LPC Law’s new monthly staff parties was upon us, starting with

a summer party extravaganza.

From 5.30pm, plus a further hour for the girls who took up camp

in the bathroom, everyone made tracks to the tricky to find

Benugo Bar at the BFI on the Southbank.

The area resembled someone’s living room with an array of

books, an interesting elephant seat with a crocked trunk and,

most importantly, an eager barman.

In true LPC style, Tony Crowder initiated an ‘internet proof’

quiz which proved, for some, not to be fully internet proof -

you know who you are!

The night was in full swing, helped by numerous servings of

canapés and countless trips to the bar. It didn’t take long for

Trivial Pursuit to be spotted in the book case and for Esther

and Alex to take turns at being quiz master. The extent of

useless information stored by LPC soon came to light,

especially amongst Josh and Emma.

The party was a resounding success and people were left

looking forward to the next outing.

Congratulations!

Congratulations to South

Eastern Advocate Laura-

Pauline who married Steve to

become the double-double

barrelled Laura-Pauline

Adcock-Jones...

.... And the Editor of

Advocator got married

too! Congratulations

also to Stuart &

Victoria.

Page 7 Autumn 2015

LPC and Hamlins continued their longstanding football rivalry with a pulsating 8-8 draw being played out on Thursday 1

October 2015 under the floodlights at Poplar.

The LPC Team of Andrew Morgan, Adam Bell, Alex Othon, Chris Nicholaou, Laurence Innes & Jack Underwood met the

Hamlins Team of Paul Sagar, Ertac Hussein, David Koubiak, Martin

Ochs and Antony Perlmutter in a high quality game which was ably

referreed by our own Tony Crowder.

Defending was not high on either teams’ priorities, with both going

for goals at every available opportunity, making the game a great

watch for those who attended.

In the end, the sides could not be separated, so both teams retired to

a local watering hole and set about planning the next encounter.

Between June and September this year, members of the senior management

team and Advocacy Managers went on tour, hosting eight Legal Update and

Business Review seminars across the country. The seminars, known colloquially as “The Roadshow”, were a forum to

discuss the structure of LPC Law, how the business had changed over recent years and some of the most significant legal

and procedural developments of late.

Because the majority of advocates instructed by LPC Law are based outside of London and away from LPC Law HQ, the

Roadshow provided an insight into how the business works and how the decisions affecting advocates (are made. It was

also an opportunity to discuss our clients’ changing needs and requirements.

The Roadshow’s legal update looked at a number of topics, including recent case law surrounding applications for relief

from sanctions, costs reforms in personal injury claims and the new pre-action protocol for residential mortgage

repossession claims. Some of the topics were so “of the moment” that we had to make amendments to the presentation

between ‘gigs’, as new judgments were handed down!

To make sure that the information gained through the seminars was retained, each Roadshow ended with drinks (the

technical term is ‘knowledge pickling’), which in some cases were still being raised deep into the next morning!

Oliver Riley, Rachel Thomas & Susan Davis Vittoria Trigilio & Stuart Snow

Libby Bentley, Hannah Norrington & Frederica Elliott

Holly Nottage, Francesca Steels, Paul Dormand

& Edward Marsh

LUBR Seminars

Football - LPC Law v Hamlins

Bristol - 31st July 2015

Page 8 Advocator

failure of the mother to make

“reasonable financial provision” in

her will for her daughter.

Part of the reasoning was the view of

the Court of Appeal that the

daughter would be left in poverty if

she were entirely disinherited, as the

family was already said to be in a

difficult situation. Also playing a part

was the lack of association of the

deceased with the charities to whom

she left her estate.

The Act itself gives wide latitude to

the Courts to decide what factors

may be relevant in making a

decision, including the provision that

these may include “... any other

matter, including the conduct of the

applicant or any other person, which

in the circumstances of the case the

court may consider relevant.”

The Potential Consequences

This was a somewhat novel use of

the Inheritance Act, which is more

commonly used when young

children are not included in wills

(usually because they have not been

updated) and thus may otherwise

unjustly lose out on inheritance and

lack in financial support.

Potentially, therefore, this decision,

and the publicity that it has received

in the media, may inspire future

applications to the Courts by adult

relatives of deceased persons. There

is unlikely to be a shortage of

disinherited family members who see

an opportunity to gain financially,

and perhaps vent some long-

standing familial grievances; the

apparent incident that sparked the

disinheritance in the instant case was

the decision of the now 54 year-old

woman, when she was still a

teenager, to marry a man of whom

her mother disapproved.

The Argument

It is not hard to sympathise with the

year-old woman who was

disinherited by her mother and left

out of the distribution of her

£500,000 estate - in favour of a

number of animal charities - should

in fact receive one third of the funds.

This was despite the very clear stated

intentions of the mother who had

not only excluded her daughter from

her will but instructed her executors

to fight any attempt by her daughter

to claim a share.

The amount eventually awarded by

the Court of Appeal, after years of

litigation, was intended to be

enough to enable the daughter to

purchase a property and have a

small sum left over, although not

enough to interfere with the benefits

she received.

The Law

The decision was based on the

Inheritance (Provision for Family and

Dependants) Act 1975 and the

Whilst it still remains the case that,

“you can’t take it with you,” the level

to which you can exert control over

what happens to your assets after

your death has had doubt cast upon

it recently by a well publicised

decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Decision

The Court of Appeal held that a 54

From Beyond The Grave

Is Your Will Still Your Will?

then tailor the specific result by

utilising factors such as the price of

property, and the level at which

benefits may be withdrawn, in order

to produce a final result?

The role of Judges is classically said

to interpret and apply the law. Does

this extend to simply inserting an

opinion - in complex circumstances -

as to what the morally better choice

may have been, and then to insert

that view in place of that made by

someone else, that being someone

who made a choice that they were

perfectly entitled to make and

capable of making? If a Judge cannot

order a person to provide for and

support a perfectly able and

competent adult child of theirs whilst

they are alive, then why do they

suddenly gain such a power upon

that person’s death?

Ultimately, the Court of Appeal’s

decision must be followed by lower

courts. But the potential for the

uneven application of the principles

laid down is clearly substantial and

the latitude that the legislation

affords to Judges is broad. Judges

may soon have to reach a view on

what exactly a person reasonably

needs and even deserves. Judges

may find themselves deciding, as the

Court of Appeal were in the instant

case, if someone is entitled to have

the finances made available to them

to go on holiday and to own their

own property - something that many

other people simply cannot afford.

And Judges may need to somehow

discern that that need is more

pressing than a thoroughly worthy

charitable cause that could even use

the very same funds to save lives.

position of a disinherited relative,

particularly an adult child who is

struggling to make ends meet and

support their own family, in seeing a

large amount of money passed

elsewhere. The perceived

capriciousness and cruelty of the

rationale in the decision to disinherit

- simple disapproval of the object of

a child’s affections, something with

which many people throughout

history can no doubt sympathise -

can also make the decision of the

Court in instances such as this

something with which it is easy to

sympathise. After all, does a child not

have a right to expect support from

their parents, the ones ultimately

responsible for their creation?

At the same time, though, it is not

hard to see a potentially substantial

judicial over-stretch in the ignoring

of the unambiguous wishes and

expressed desires of a person as to

how their estate is to be utilised

upon their death.

After all, this was not a case of

simply compensating a deserving

Page 9 Autumn 2015

relative who was left out of a will by

accident or a quirk of fate. The

decision was consciously made and

communicated to the mother’s

lawyers before her death, along with

her reasoning. There is clearly

nothing uncertain about an

expressed wish to fight any attempts

of the daughter to obtain a share of

her mother’s estate.

Furthermore, there was absolutely

nothing to obligate the mother in

the instant case to provide any

support to her adult daughter while

she was alive. If she had utilised her

final years in a quest to ensure there

was no inheritance remaining upon

her demise, there would be nothing

that anyone could do to improve the

position of the daughter – if there

was no inheritance at all then there

would be nothing of which to seek a

share.

So why, one may well ask, should it

be the case that wills - legal

documents created by people of

sound mind - can simply be over-

ridden because a Judge some time

later decides, taking into account

whatever they deem they need to,

that a freely-made decision of a

competent person was not the

“right” decision? And is it really

applying any clear legal principle to

Jonathan Hasson

Assistant Advocacy Manager

Page 10 Advocator

When Chickens Come Home To Roost

Section 36 and Non-Standard Mortgages Interest-only mortgages

Interest-only mortgages, which allow

a borrower to defer the repayment

of the principal sum until the end of

the mortgage, became very popular

during the housing boom of the

2000s, reaching a peak in 2007 when

it is reported that a third of

mortgages were interest-only.

Unfortunately, rather than investing

in an appropriate repayment vehicle

in order to pay off the loan, many

borrowers failed to put into place

any repayment plan. In 2013, the

FCA published research showing that

almost half of all people with interest

-only mortgages, being 1.3 million

homeowners, might not be able to

afford to pay off the loan at maturity

According to an article published by

Citizen’s Advice Bureau on 4th

September 2015, based on figures

taken from a YouGov poll, the scale

of the problem has been greatly

underestimated. It is projected that

there are 3.3 million homeowners

with interest-only mortgages, of

which 1.7 million have no repayment

vehicle, 934,000 have no plan for

repayment and 432,727 have not

be able within a reasonable period to

pay any sums due under the

mortgage or to remedy a default

consisting of a breach of any other

obligation arising under or by virtue

of the mortgage.” It is clear that the

discretion is not confined to

mortgage arrears and there is no

reason in principle why it cannot

apply to a different kind of breach,

even, arguably, a breach of the

requirement to pay the loan in full at

the expiry of the term.

The question which arises is what

constitutes a ‘reasonable period of

time’ for these purposes. In the case

of mortgage arrears, this is easily

answered by reference to

Cheltenham and Gloucester Building

Society v Norgan [1996] 1 W.L.R. 343,

in which it was stated that the

starting point is to consider whether

the defendant is likely to pay off the

arrears within the remaining term of

the mortgage whilst maintaining the

monthly mortgage instalments.

In the case of a failure to pay off the

loan in full upon the expiry of the

mortgage term, the answer is less

immediately obvious. What

even thought about how they will

repay the loan. Although FCA

guidance requires lenders to treat

possession as a last resort and sets

out a best practice model which

includes considering whether it is

possible to offer repayment options,

it recognises that there is no

obligation to offer such options and

that they might not be available, for

example where borrowers are at, or

near to, retirement age. It is

therefore very likely that there will be

a significant number of claims issued

in the next few years in the

circumstances described above.

How does the Court deal with

interest-only mortgage possession

claims?

The most important issue is

undoubtedly whether and to what

extent the Court has a discretion

under ss36 and 8 of the

Administration of Justice Acts 1970

and 1973 respectively to adjourn

proceedings or to make an order for

possession suspended on payment

terms. According to s.36, the

discretion arises “if it appears to the

court that...the mortgagor is likely to

Page 11 Autumn 2015

balance. It might therefore appear to

the Court that there is no imminent

danger of forfeiture.

However, it is strongly arguable that

the breach of the condition to pay

the ground rent and service charges,

however small those sums might be,

is incapable of remedy. Whilst the

missed payments can, subject to

affordability, be remedied, the

breach of the obligation to pay the

ground rent and charges to the

freeholder cannot nor can the fact

that the lender has been required to

make the payment on the borrower’s

behalf. It therefore follows that, in

these circumstances, s.36 cannot be

engaged. As was established in

Smith v Spaul [2002] EWCA Civ 1830,

whilst a mortgagee is entitled to

apply for relief from forfeiture

pursuant to s.146 Law of Property

Act 1925, there is no requirement for

the mortgagee to be served with

notice requiring remedy of the

breach and the lessor might

therefore forfeit the lease without

the mortgagee’s knowledge.

It can also be argued that a lender

ought not to be penalised for

seeking to protect its security by

paying the outstanding ground rent

and service charges and that the fact

that the borrower has already

breached the term requiring

payment of those sums means that

he is not taking the matter seriously

and is likely to do it again. Further, it

would seem most unreasonable to

expect the lender to keep paying

those sums on the borrower’s behalf

indefinitely when, in failing to do so,

the borrower has clearly breached

the terms of the mortgage.

argument that the Court does not

have a discretion to extend the

repayments beyond the term of the

mortgage in the circumstances. This

will be strengthened where a lender

demonstrates that steps have been

taken to contact the borrower in

advance of the expiry date and to

consider possible repayment options

in accordance with the FCA guidance

referred to above.

Shared-ownership mortgages

Another current issue is that of the

shared-ownership mortgage,

whereby the mortgaged property is

a leasehold property and the

borrower has failed to maintain

payments to the freeholder, usually a

housing association, of the ground

rent, service charges or both. As

above, such a possession claim will

be pleaded on the basis of ‘other

breach’, notwithstanding that there

might also be some associated

mortgage arrears. (The mortgage will

no doubt contain a term that the

borrower must pay any ground rent

or service charges falling due in

respect of the lease.)

The question of whether s.36 is

engaged is made difficult by the

nature of the breach. The borrower’s

failure to maintain payments due

under the lease amounts to a breach

of a condition of the lease which

entitles the freeholder to forfeiture,

extinguishing the claimant’s security.

Unsurprisingly, this is an outcome

lenders are keen to avoid. Such

claims are often made in

circumstances where the lender has

already paid the outstanding ground

rent or service charges to the

freeholder in an effort to prevent

forfeiture and, in accordance with

the terms of the mortgage, has

added those sums to the mortgage

constitutes a ‘reasonable period of

time’ cannot be judged by reference

to the remaining term of the

mortgage as that term has expired.

The question is then whether the

Court can extend the period of time

for repayment beyond the term of

the mortgage. It was said by Evans

LJ in Norgan that “A ‘reasonable

period’ implies that the interests of

both parties have to be taken into

account” and that “it may not often

be reasonable to expect the lender

to wait longer than the original

term”. Whilst not explicitly

addressing the question of the

circumstances in which it might be

reasonable to extend the repayment

period beyond the term of the

mortgage and by how long, Evans LJ

provided some assistance by way of

a summary in which he listed various

considerations including the type of

the mortgage, the reason for the

arrears, the date full repayment is

due and whether or not it is a case in

which it is reasonable to expect the

lender to capitalise the interest.

In the case of a defendant’s failure to

repay the loan in full on expiry of the

term, clearly the fact that it is an

interest-only mortgage, the fact that

the defendant has failed to secure or

maintain a suitable repayment

vehicle as required, the fact that the

whole sum has already become

payable and the fact that the

claimant is not receiving any

recompense for being kept out of its

money or for being unable to profit

by lending that money to other

customers strongly support an

David Chamberlain

Advocate

South-Eastern Circuit

LPC Law Ltd, 24 Martin Lane, London EC4R 0DR Tel: 020 7090 1500 Fax: 020 7090 1550 Email: info@lpc-law.co.uk

Three

Peaks

Challenge Leaving London on the (very, very long) train to Glasgow on 9th July

2015, the 5 LPC Mountain Climbers (Andrew Morgan, Adam Taplin,

Andrew Morrell, Lettica Phillips and Pete Blackmore), along with key

team member/minibus driver/sandwich maker Michael Javaherian, were

ready for the challenge that lay before them.

After a brief stopover in lovely Glasgow for the evening, we picked up

our minibus, stocked up on ridiculous amounts of pasta, sausage rolls

and energy drinks and headed up into the Highlands.

Ben Nevis was started by the team at 17:00 and the sheer scale of the

mountain became apparent. What became more apparent, however,

was that the weather did not look like it was going to be with us. The

first 1000m of the climb were relatively straight forward but, after this,

the low lying cloud meant that any hopes of a pleasant view at the top

were dashed. Not to be perturbed, the team were back down to awake

the silently slumbering Michael at 21:45, 15 minutes ahead of our 5

hour target.

Everybody then found the

cosiest spot they could in the

minibus for the overnight drive

to Scafell Pike in the Lake

District. Unfortunately, luck was

not with us on the drive south,

as a large section of a key motorway had been closed, meaning any time that we had

gained on Ben Nevis, was lost and we arrived at Scafell Pike, some 45 minutes after our

target of 04:00. Not wanting to waste any time, our 5 intrepid mountaineers jumped out

of the minibus and began their second ascent. It soon became clear that the weather

had taken a turn for the worse. Visibility became a major issue. Indeed, just below the

summit, we stumbled onto 3 lost “Three Peakers” who had become separated from their

team and had no maps or idea of where they were. It was decided that it was more important to ensure they got off the

mountain safely so, just shy of the summit, we chose to lend a helping hand to our 3 new team members.

Getting down to the minibus at 09:45, we were aware that the odds of us now finishing in the target time of 24 hours were

slim. Still, everybody was still hoping that Snowdon would be kinder to us than the other mountains for weather. It wasn’t. We

arrived at Snowdon, again delayed by traffic, at approximately 14:30. The time we had allocated to Snowdon was 4 hours up

and down, so to finish by 17:00 was going to be tough. It turned out it was impossible. The weather had turned from bad to

awful. However, I’m proud to say our team knuckled down and finished Snowdon, when many others were giving up. Coming

off the mountain at a time of 19:40, meant we had missed our target time but everybody still had a great sense of achievement

(finishing in 26:40).

2nd Peak! Scafell

Pike

Start 4.45am

1

2

5

3

4

Prep! Glasgow

Overnight

1st Peak! Ben Nevis

Start 5pm

Finish 9.45pm

Start!

London

3rd Peak! Snowdon

Start 2.30pm

Finish 7.40pm

Adam Taplin, Andrew Morrell, Pete Blackmore, Andrew Morgan and

Lettica Phillips Well deserved bubbly to celebrate an excellent achievement!

Driver Michael Javaherian with Andrew

Morrell, Lettica Phillips, Andrew Morgan and

Pete Blackmore