First National Bank Plc v Nano Kojo Adjei Achampong and Elizabeth Achampong and Anthony Owusu-Ansah and Lucy Owusu-Ansah
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Mr Justice Blackburne,Lady Justice Arden |
| Judgment Date | 31 March 2003 |
| Neutral Citation | [2003] EWCA Civ 487 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | Case No: B2/2002/1986 |
| Date | 31 March 2003 |
[2003] EWCA Civ 487
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE SHOREDITCH COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE COTRAN)
Lady Justice Arden and
Mr Justice Blackburne
Case No: B2/2002/1986
Josephine Hayes (instructed by Messrs Needham & James) for the Appellant
Latiff Adenekan (instructed by Messrs S C Pelentrides & Co) for the Respondent
Introduction
This is an appeal by the claimant, First National Bank plc (the bank), brought with the leave of the single Lord Justice from an order of Judge Cotran in the Shoreditch County Court dated 30 August 2002. By that order, the judge dismissed the bank's claim for possession of 19 Knightland Road, London E5 (the property). He entered judgment for the second defendant, Elizabeth Achampong, by declaring that her execution of a legal charge dated 1 st August 1989 (the legal charge) had been procured by the undue influence of the first defendant, her husband. He ordered that the legal charge be set aside and that the charges register of the property be rectified by cancelling the entry made in respect of it.
The hearing which led to the judge's order was the culmination of extraordinarily long drawn-out proceedings brought by the bank against the Achampongs and the third and fourth defendants, Mr Anthony Owusu-Ansah and his wife Lucy. All four defendants come from Ghana. Mrs Achampong has lived in this country for many years. Her husband, the first defendant, left her to return to Ghana in September 1989 (ie shortly after the legal charge was entered into) and she last had contact with him in 1994. Mr Owusu-Ansah is Mrs Achampong's cousin. He and his wife, the fourth defendant, have never been resident in this country. They have always lived in Ghana.
The proceedings have their origin in events which occurred in the late spring and summer of 1989 culminating in the execution of the legal charge whereby the Achampongs charged the property by way of mortgage to the bank as security for a loan by the bank of £51,500. The Achampongs were joint proprietors of the property in which they lived with their children. The purpose of the transaction was to raise money for Mr Owusu-Ansah's business in Ghana. The loan proceeds were paid to him immediately following completion.
Mr Owusu-Ansah had come to this country in 1989 on a visit from Ghana. He stayed with the Achampongs at the property. His wife, the fourth defendant, was not with him. Although her signature appears on several documents, not least the legal charge, it was never explained how it came to be there. The supposition is that her signature was forged.
The loan —it was later increased to £51,500 to cover the bank's expenses and administrative charges —was negotiated indirectly through a Mr Parrott of an organisation called London Trust Securities. London Trust Securities seems to have acted as a mortgage broker. Mr Parrott in turn seems to have been introduced to the defendants through a sub-broker. At all events, two applications for the loan were filled out each seeking an overdraft facility of £50,000 over a period of 25 years. One was in the name of the Achampongs and the other in the name of Owusu-Ansahs. Each form stated that the purpose of the loan was "injection into business". Mr Parrott did not think that he saw any of the defendants. He could not recall the identity of the sub-broker.
The forms were sent to a Mr Berg, an associate director responsible at the time for the commercial new business loans department of the bank. They were accompanied by a further form offering the property as security. The property was stated to have a value of £150,000 and to be subject to a small local authority mortgage.
The application (the two separate forms were evidently treated as a single application) was approved subject to a satisfactory valuation and the completion of a building society questionnaire. Subsequently, the bank was sent a valuation report dated 14 June 1989 showing that the property had a mortgage market value of £120,000. The completed questionnaire was also provided. This resulted in the bank approving a loan for £50,000 over 25 years without calling for proof of income. It also resulted in the sending out of a formal offer letter dated 16 June. It was addressed to all four defendants. The offer was of a facility of £51,500 subject to a second legal charge over the property and the assignment of a life insurance policy for a minimum sum of £51,500. It stated the minimum monthly instalments to be £620, set out the rate of interest and invited the defendants, if they wished to take up the facility, to sign and return an attached copy together with a note of the name and address of the solicitors who would be acting for them in the matter and a cheque for £250 by way of initial deposit. A copy of the offer letter was duly returned bearing the apparent signatures of the four defendants. It was dated 29 June 1989. The offer letter duly signed together with the £250 cheque, a standing order mandate and Land Registry authority were sent to the bank under cover of a letter dated 30 June 1989 from London Trust Securities. That letter gave the name and address of the defendants' solicitors, namely a Mr H Pallis of Howard Pallis & Co of Upper Clapton Road, London E5. On 14 July 1989 the bank wrote to Mr Pallis. Enclosed with the letter was, with other documents, a legal charge for execution in Mr Pallis's presence.
On 26 July 1989 Mr Pallis sent the bank the legal charge duly executed by the Achampongs. The charge recited that the bank had agreed to make an advance to Mr and Mrs Owusu-Ansah upon having it secured on the terms therein set out.
It remained to obtain the Achampongs' signature to an assignment to the bank of a life policy as part of the bank's stipulated security. By letter dated 31 July Mr Pallis informed the bank that this was forthcoming. The following day, 1 August, the bank sent Mr Pallis a draft in his firm's favour for £49,850 which was the net amount of the loan. On or about 3 August Mr Pallis delivered by hand a cheque for £49,621.25 which was the net amount of the loan after deduction of his firm's fees. This money was paid to Mr Owusu-Ansah. As the judge stated:
"…It is clear from the whole documentation and from the beginning to end of this story that the money was effectively borrowed for the business of Mr Owusu-Ansah and indeed eventually it went into his account in London, having got it via Mr Pallis and the Achampongs, into his account.
Everybody concerned knew this. The bank clearly looked to Mr Owusu-Ansah for the repayments. That is clearly accepted by him because before he went back to Ghana he paid a year in advance (£620 x 12) a cheque for £7,440 in early August and it seems sent that cheque to Mr Anders, the in-house solicitor, who was clearly acting for the bank.
There can be no doubt in my mind that whatever these documents say, everybody concerned, whether it was Mr Pallis or whether it was Mr Berg, whether it was Mr Anders and probably, though it does not matter, Mr Parrott —knew that the bank would look primarily to Mr Owusu-Ansah for repayments."
Gradually, however, Mr Owusu-Ansah fell into arrears and the bank launched proceedings. Those proceedings —there were two separate claims —have followed a chequered course. The first proceedings were launched in March 1993. They were dismissed in September 1993 on account of the bank's failure to attend a hearing. The bank then launched fresh proceedings —the present claim —in November 1993. It sought possession of the property and payment of all monies due. In early 1994, permission was given to serve the proceedings out of the jurisdiction on Mr Achampong and the Owusu-Ansahs. By then Mr Achampong had long since left this country and was living in Ghana.
Those proceedings were also struck out. That was in March 1994 but the order doing so was itself rescinded in June 1994. At that point the proceedings again became active for a year or so but then went to sleep for three years until August 1998, when the bank obtained leave to serve an amended pleading. The matter then went to sleep again until January 2001 when, on the court's own motion, an order was made striking out Mrs Achampong's defence. That order was subsequently set aside and further directions made. But, following further non-compliance with the court's orders, the district judge in October 2001 struck out the claim and defence and gave permission to Mrs Achampong to apply for the relief sought in her counterclaim. That was for a declaration that the legal charge was null and void, alternatively that her execution of it had been procured by her husband's undue influence together with consequential relief. This seems finally to have stirred the bank into action: it applied, successfully, to have the striking-out order set aside thereby reviving its claim. Following further directions, the matter eventually came on for trial before Judge Cotran in July 2002. As I have mentioned judgment was delivered on 30 August 2002.
In the meantime, on 17 December 2001, the district judge entered judgment for the bank against Mr Achampong and the Owusu-Ansahs "for an amount to be decided by the court". That was on the footing, as pleaded, that each was liable to the bank on the terms of the loan agreement (constituted by their signed acceptance of the bank's offer letter dated 16 June 1989). The amount of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Close Invoice Finance Ltd v Pile and Another
...not have a sale at all. 15 I was referred by Mr. Lidington to the decision of the Court of Appeal in First National Bank v Achampong [2004] 1 FCR 18. That was a case where Judge Coughlin in the Shoreditch County Court had dismissed the bank's claim for possession in respect of a charge wher......
-
Catherine Waller-Edwards v One Savings Bank Plc
...sufficient. 66 In this context Mr Beaumont referred me to the decision of the Court of Appeal in First National Bank plc v Achampong [2003] EWCA Civ 487, specifically at [22], [23] and [27]. He submitted that Achampong was a case where the Court of Appeal regarded the mortgage lender as on......
-
Edwards v Lloyds TSB Bank Plc
...Ltd v Bell[2001] 3 FCR 134, [2001] 2 FLR 809, CA. Bowers v Bowers (3 February 1987, unreported). First National Bank plc v Achampong[2003] EWCA Civ 487, [2004] 1 FCR 18. First National Securities Ltd v Hegerty [1984] 3 All ER 641, [1985] QB 850, [1984] 3 WLR 769, [1985] FLR 80, CA. Mortgage......
-
Thompson v Foy
...whom the charge would otherwise be valid. This principle was applied to a case of undue influence in First National Bank plc v Achampong [2004] 1 FCR 18. In my judgment it is equally applicable in this case. Mrs Foy is, on the basis of my findings, entitled to a share equal to £200,000 in V......
-
Undue Influence: Clarification Of The Requirements On Lenders
...the Chief Justice did not have his attention drawn to the English Court of Appeal decision in First National Bank Plc v. Achampong [2003] EWCA Civ 487 where influence was found, at first instance, to have been exerted by one surety upon another. This was in circumstances where the two suret......