Adrian made no contribution to the mortgage repayments, so could be adjudged to be entitled less than Natalie – approximately 45%

Adrian would be entitled to a 50% share given his equal contribution to the purchase price

Adrian could be entitled as a beneficial joint tenant given the equal contribution to the purchase price

Natalie would be entitled to 100% of the beneficial interest as she is the sole proprietor

Adrian delegated management of the property to Natalie and, therefore, impliedly waived the priority of his interest to the lender

They would struggle to claim priority because the reason for Adrian’s absence was work, so they should have enquired about his occupation

As Natalie was the sole registered proprietor, the lender would only ever have to consider her interest in the property

As he never made loan repayments, his interest could never take priority over the lender’s

Troy would be paid half of the proceeds of sale first, with the lender being able to sue Annie separately to pay the £20,000 shortfall

Troy would be paid half of the proceeds of sale first, with the lender having to suffer the £20,000 shortfall

The lender would be paid first from the proceeds of sale, with the remaining £230,000 split equally between Annie and Troy

The lender would be paid first from the proceeds of sale, with the remaining £230,000 being paid to Troy

Troy contributed half of the mortgage repayments, so could be entitled to half of what has been repaid so far

Troy could be entitled to an interest in the property, but it would be minimal as he was not registered as a proprietor

Annie would be entitled to 100% of the beneficial interest as she is the sole proprietor

Troy could be entitled as a beneficial joint tenant, given the joint finances, and shared contributions to the purchase price

The lender would struggle to make an argument here as they failed to inquire about the possibility of Troy having an interest in the property

He started to make loan repayments so implicitly surrendered the priority of his interest in the property

As Troy was not a registered proprietor, priority would be given to the lender’s interest by default

Troy voluntarily left the property and was, therefore, not in actual occupation at the time the charge was created, so they did not need to inquire about any other interest holder

The borrower will be given the same length of time it has taken to accrue arrears to repay them

The borrower will always be given the remaining term of the loan to repay arrears

The borrower will be given three calendar months from the date of the judgment

The starting point for defining reasonableness is immediately, with contextual factors used to routinely extend this

The starting point for defining reasonableness is the remaining term of the loan, with contextual factors used to routinely reduce this

The borrower has evidence of a job offer that will enable him to repay the arrears within a reasonable period

The borrower thinks an opportunity will soon arise for them to be able to repay arrears

The borrower’s elderly mother has made provision in her will that he will inherit enough money to repay the loan

The borrower promises to start looking to sell the property in order to repay the lender

The borrower argues that the lender’s act of peaceable re-entry is unlawful

The lender should avoid delays in the sale of the property if it would unfairly impact upon the interests of the borrower

The lender must not sell the property to themselves or associates, because this would be a conflict of interest

The lender will only be able to sell the property when market conditions are favourable to the borrower

The lender must make a reasonable effort to obtain the true market value of the property at the time of sale

The lender must apply any remaining funds from the proceeds of sale to the borrowers once the debt and costs associated with the sale have been paid

Irregular payments made relating to the furnishing and decoration of the property

Making a one-off lump sum contribution to the purchase price of the property

Non-financial upkeep of the family home, for a number of years, including the raising of children

Unilaterally demanding to be registered as a proprietor of the property

Making regular contributions to peripheral household expenses such as car loan repayments

The landlord cannot exercise her right to forfeit as Manny was not an original signatory to the lease, so the proviso for re-entry does not apply to him

The breach of the covenant not to make any structural alterations or additions to the premises is so serious that the landlord has the right to forfeit at any point, in line with the proviso for re-entry

The landlord would not be able to forfeit because she has waived her right to do so as it has been 11 months since she found out about Manny's conduct

The landlord would not be able to forfeit at all because one of the breaches in question was of a "once and for all" nature and she has implicitly waived her right to breach

The landlord cannot currently exercise her right to forfeit for the breach because she has implicitly waived the right to do so. However, one of Manny's breaches is a continuing breach, so the landlord could simply seek to forfeit if she stops accepting the payment of rent or service charges from Manny going forwards