| NICA 72||Ref:||STE10479|
|Judgment: approved by the Court for handing down||Delivered:||29/11/2017|
|(subject to editorial corrections)*|
STEPHENS LJ (delivering the judgment of the Court)
(1) The enforcement of the order dated 18 June 2012 whereby the appellant was ordered to deliver possession of the premises to the plaintiff be stayed for a period of 90 days from the date of this order provided always that the appellant and the second defendant do forthwith begin to market the premises for sale through the estate agent Norman Morrow.
(2) The second-named defendant be joined to this action.
(3) That the second defendant's claim to have an interest in the premises be dismissed as failing to disclose a reasonable defence pursuant to Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules.
(4) That the second named defendant did deliver to the plaintiff possession of the premises forthwith.
(5) That the enforcement of the above order that the second named defendant did deliver to the plaintiff possession of the premises forthwith be stayed for a period of 90 days from the date of this order provided always that the appellant and the second defendant do forthwith begin to market the premises for sale through the estate agent Norman Morrow.
"(a) Stay of execution of eviction from my home of over 33 years.
(b) To keep my home on the market to achieve the best price so that I won't lose everything I have invested in the property.
(c) I have taken an ongoing case against Preferred Mortgages and Personal Touch Finance Ltd."
(a) She accepts that she "was lent a mortgage on (her) home … by an advance from (the respondent)."
(b) She asserts that the mortgage and loan was mis-sold.
(c) She is awaiting a report from Dan Shearing investigator for the Financial Ombudsman in relation to Personal Touch Finance.
(d) She gave McKinty & Wright Solicitors for the respondent a promissory note.
(e) She asserts that the respondent and his solicitors know that the premises was worth a great deal if put into the hands of a developer.