MORTGAGE Express v Lambert [2016] EWCA Civ 555 concerned a sale and leaseback. In desperate circumstances, the naïve and vulnerable A (Ms Lambert) entered into a sale and leaseback arrangement in respect of her flat. She was paid a small proportion of the value of the flat, which was then registered in the joint names of B (the buyers). B mortgaged it without disclosing to C (the mortgagee) the leaseback arrangement to A. The mortgage was registered, but no lease was. Ultimately, B defaulted on the mortgage and C sought to sell the property. The litigation concerned whether A had a right that could bind C. The Court of Appeal held that A did not and allowed the sale to proceed.

THE recent Supreme Court decision in Scott v Southern Pacific Mortgages [2014] UKSC 52; [2014] H.L.R. 48 considered whether a promise made by the buyer of a piece of land, before completion, could give rise to a proprietary estoppel claim. Obiter, the court also considered the width and applicability of the rule in Abbey National B.S. v Cann [1991] A.C. 56, which has traditionally been seen to provide that completion and the creation of a mortgage charge are to be considered as one transaction in cases of acquisition mortgages where the purchaser could not have purchased the property without the mortgage loan.