Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd (No. 1) [1993] AC 295
Charge holder acted in bad faith and liable in damages vis-à-vis subsequent charge holder
Facts
The plaintiff appointed receivers and managers of a company over which it held a debenture. A separate debenture in relation to the company was held by the defendants. The defendants appointed receivers and managers of the company for the purpose of disrupting the receivership instigated by the first plaintiff. Under the defendants’ receivership, the company continued to trade and substantial losses were incurred. The defendants’ receivership was ultimately assigned to the first plaintiff.
Issues
Damages were awarded at first instance against the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs for breach of duty in negligence. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand partially allowed an appeal by the defendants. There was a further appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.
Decision/Outcome
The appeal was dismissed and the plaintiffs’ cross-appeal was allowed. The Privy Council held that equity imposed a specific duty on a mortgagee (i.e. the first defendant), and a receiver appointed by them, to exercise their powers in good faith for the purpose of obtaining repayment of the charge. The equitable duty was owned to the borrower and to any subsequent charge or debenture holder (i.e. the first plaintiff). The receivership by the defendants had been instigated for improper purposes and had been conducted in bad faith. The first defendant had acted in bad faith by failing to transfer its debenture to the first plaintiff when first requested to do so. Accordingly, the defendants were liable in damages to the same extent as would have been applicable had they been liable in negligence.
270 words
Updated 19 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate. Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd (No. 1) [1993] AC 295 is a Privy Council decision and the legal principles it established — that a mortgagee and a receiver owe an equitable duty of good faith to the mortgagor and to subsequent charge holders, but that there is no general duty of care in negligence governing the exercise of a mortgagee’s powers — continue to be recognised in English and Welsh law. The decision was subsequently considered and applied in important English cases including Medforth v Blake [2000] Ch 86 (Court of Appeal), which confirmed and developed the equitable duties of a receiver in relation to the conduct of a business. The broader principle that mortgagees and receivers are not subject to a general tortious duty of care, but are subject to equitable duties, remains good law. Students should note that Downsview is a Privy Council authority and therefore persuasive rather than strictly binding on English courts, though it has been consistently followed. No subsequent statutory changes have materially displaced the principles described in this summary.
