Major TGBMS News | Reversal of Fortunes in the High Court

Over the course of this week, I have been privileged to witness my friend’s extraordinary reversal of fortunes in the High Court, following six years of justice being woefully miscarried.

Having long since had a bogus mortgage possession order issued against her, she initially managed to prevent it being enforced by arguing that:

a. The bank forged her signature on the mortgage deed.
b. She never received a penny of the mortgage monies, which she had proof were received by a Mexican bank she had never heard of.

Despite two High Court judges acknowledging that there is compelling evidence of fraud in her case, the bank served notice that they were seeking a warrant to enforce the possession order.

However, when she challenged their application on the TGBMS Grounds, without prejudice to the foregoing allegations, she was invited by the High Court to apply for permission to appeal the possession order out of time.

Application Initially Dismissed

The application was duly filed into the High Court, which unexpectedly ordered that six years worth of evidence needed to be carefully assessed in a hearing.

However, after hearing nothing from February till October, my friend was understandably dismayed to receive an order dismissing her application as ‘out of time’.

This occurred because a transcript of a hearing of her initial challenge of the possession order application was not filed into court, which transpired through no fault on my friend’s part.

Nevertheless, since the order gave her seven days to request an oral hearing to challenge the plainly unfair decision, she did just that and a hearing was listed to take place last Tuesday.

Disgraceful Advocacy

Needless to say, the bank instructed perhaps the most notorious barrister currently engaged in the perpetuation of the suffering and loss caused by endemic mortgage fraud, to oppose my friend’s appeal.

This resulted in five incredibly aggressive applications being made against her, seeking:

1. An order affirming that her appeal has no reasonable prospect of success.
2. A declaration that she is barred from alleging fraud against the bank.
3. An order dismissing her application to set aside the order dismissing her appeal application as ‘totally without merit’.
4. A decree that her indebtedness was proven in the hearing of the possession order application.
5. A Civil Restraint Order, to prevent her from continuing to fight to save her home.

Cogent Counterclaim

Mere words cannot express how happy I am to tell you that my friend’s performance in court last week was one of the most extraordinary I have had the privilege to bear witness to.

She presented her simply stated case with calm self-assurance, standing upon the facts and the law:

1. There is no mortgage deed signed by her in the presence of an independent witness, in breach of section 1(3) of the LPMPA 1989.
2. There is no mortgage contract signed by both parties and incorporating the terms, in breach of section 2 of the 1989 Act and section 44 of the Companies Act 2006.
3. The terms were not individually negotiated, rendering them unenforceable under section 5 of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999.
4. There is no evidence that she received a penny of the mortgage monies claimed.

Reversal of Fortunes

One by one, each point was carefully considered by the judge, who would not hear the bank’s application for civil restraint, on the basis that he could see nothing vexatious about my friend’s applications before the court.

Moreover, the judge was not afraid to show his disdain for the aggressive tactics of the bank’s advocate, who very often applies for mortgagors in dispute to be made bankrupt and locked up, so that they cannot resist the theft of their property.

However, on this particular occasion, the judge was having none of it and insisted that he needed more time to consider his judgment. So another hearing was listed and took place, two days later.

In a truly extraordinary reversal of fortunes, the judge refused all the applications of the bank and ordered that:

1. The order dismissing my friend’s appeal be set aside, as not having been made in the interests of justice.
2. A hearing her application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself be listed to take place in the new year.

In addition, the judge stated in his judgment that the bank must prove her indebtedness if it is going to sustain its claim.

Another High Court Victory Beckons

What makes this turnaround all the more extraordinary is the fact that this is the first time the advocate for the bank has not been able to guarantee the enforcement of a fraudulent mortgage possession order.

Not only did he lose to my indomitable friend, he lost five applications in one hit.

Predictably enough for a bad loser, he disrespectfully insisted to the judge that her appeal has no reasonable prospect of success, despite his judgment to the contrary.

Well, if that were the case, she would not have had any reasonable prospect of achieving this amazing result, on exactly the same grounds as her appeal, which she is now perfectly poised to win.

In the event she does, we will have another binding High Court precedent to rely upon in the class actions to end mortgage fraud, as well as another inspiring success story for those who need it.