|[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]|
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> Da Rocha-Afodu & Anor v Mortgage Express Ltd & Anor  EWCA Civ 454 (20 March 2014)
Cite as:  EWCA Civ 454
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE CENTRAL LONDON JUSTICE CENTRE
(District Judge Langley)
London, WC2A 2LL
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE JACKSON
LADY JUSTICE SHARP
| DA ROCHA-AFODU AND ANR
|MORTGAGE EXPRESS LTD AND ANR
WordWave International Limited
A Merrill Communications Company
165 Fleet Street London EC4A 2DY
Tel No: 020 7404 1400 Fax No: 020 7404 1424
(Official Shorthand Writers to the Court)
Mr R Higgins (instructed by DLA Piper UK Ltd) appeared on behalf of the Respondent
Crown Copyright ©
"The following will apply if we take possession of the property:
• If you have left any goods or animals at the property, we may take the following steps on your behalf and at your expense. Firstly, we may remove and store the goods and animals. Then we may either dispose of them or if we know that they do not belong to you, return them to their owner.
• We will only take the steps mentioned in the previous paragraph if you have not removed the goods or animals
- within 7 days after we have written to you at your new address asking you to remove them or.
- if you have not given us your new address, within 7 days after you have left the property.
• Nothing in the first paragraph of this condition gives us any charge over any goods or animals left at the property. For example, we cannot keep the income from the sale of any goods or animals."
"If you have left any goods or animals at the property, we may take the following steps on your behalf and at your expense."
"We will only take the steps mentioned in the previous paragraph if the mortgagor had not removed his goods and animals by the end of 7 days."
"An involuntary bailee has an obligation to do what was right and reasonable."
"It seems to me that to try to put a bailment, for instance, into a watertight compartment -- such as gratuitous bailment on the one hand, and bailment for reward on the other -- is to overlook the fact that there might well be an infinite variety of cases which might come into one or the other category. The question that we have to consider in a case of this kind (if it is necessary to consider negligence) is whether in the circumstances of this particular case a sufficient standard of care has been observed by the defendants or their servants."