I found this post using a google search and thought I would post an explanation if anyone is still interested:(posted 7693 days ago)There are really two things being discussed in the case.
The first is to do with limitation. In English law there is a time limit on the bringing of most civil actions. For example if I suffer injury in a car accident then, barring various special cases, I have 3 years to sue or I am out of time.
Now when a mortgage lender (mortgagee) takes possession of property and excercises its power of sale to make good arrears on the mortgage it has a duty (but not a very strong duty) to make sure the sale is not at an undervalue. So it can't just sell it to whatever it can get off a tramp in the street.
The question is: how long after the sale do you get to sue? The answer is 6 years.
A mortgage has to be made in a special legal document called a deed. For historical reasons I won't go into you can sue on an agreement made in a deed for 12 years (its what is called "a specialty", like realty and personalty). The court said that the duty not to sell at an undervalue didn't come out of the deed, which only provides that a certain sum is due etc etc, but out of a more general jurisdiction of the court called equity. This (by analogy with other kinds of action) would have a time limit of 6 years.
Hope that is clear.
The other question was: when selling a repossessed property, do I take all the money owed to me out of it, or just that amount that was mortgaged? There might be a sequence of mortgages or other charges on a property and if I took all I was owed it would be unfair to later chargees, so the court held the bank was right just to take what it was owed under the mortgage.
Well, I hope someone appreciates that.