Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc [1991] Ch. 26
Property law – Mortgage – Sale of property
Facts
PT brought an action challenging the sale of the property by the defendant mortgagee, DB, after his wife had missed mortgage payments under the mortgage agreement. PT held a beneficial interest in the property in question but it was solely owned by his wife and she was the only mortgagor. The judge dismissed the initial question in which PT challenged DB’s rights and the court subsequently ordered the court costs to be paid by the plaintiff. DB requested that the costs were added to the security paid for the property under the mortgage agreement and this was subsequently refused by the judge. DB appealed the judge’s decision.
Issue
DB’s appeal was bought on the basis that the judge was wrong to deny adding the costs to the security of the mortgage as DB, under the circumstances, was required to defend his title under the mortgage, to effectively a stranger. It was important for the court to understand the relationship between the mortgagor and the plaintiff and especially whether PT had sufficient link to the property that imposing the costs on the property became reasonable.
Held
DB’s appeal was dismissed by the court and the decision of the trial judge was affirmed. In circumstances where a third-party created a claim that wrongly questioned the mortgagee’s rights in relation to a property, it was not appropriate that they are reimbursed from the mortgaged property. This is also the case where the third party stands to gain from raising the question in the first place.
Updated 20 March 2026
This case summary remains accurate as a statement of the law decided in Parker-Tweedale v Dunbar Bank plc [1991] Ch 26. The principle that a mortgagee cannot add litigation costs to the mortgage security where those costs arise from defending a claim brought by a third party with only a beneficial interest (rather than the mortgagor) has not been reversed or materially qualified by subsequent legislation or case law. The case continues to be cited in standard property law and mortgage law texts as good authority on this point. No subsequent statutory changes under the Law of Property Act 1925 or elsewhere affect the core holding. The summary is suitable for students as a reliable statement of the case, though readers should be aware it does not address the broader equitable principles governing a mortgagee’s duty of care on sale, which have been developed in later cases such as Medforth v Blake [2000] Ch 86 and Horsham Properties Group Ltd v Clark [2008] EWHC 2327 (Ch), albeit those cases concern different aspects of mortgagee duties and do not disturb the specific ruling summarised here.
