I am hoping that it will be posted without any interpretation - allowing everyone to read it for themselves and form their own views before interpretations start. (I can but hope) may be just a few relevant extracts will be posted to highlight some of the aspects of the decision made

I have soap and water on stand by, just in case it is me (hope this is not classed as beer garden talk)

The Property Chamber say a written decision will most likely be issued after 20 Feb 2014 - Is It Me? says that the case has been stayed for 28 days for the lender to provide some unidentified documentation - so we will have to wait and see - however, I do agree with the notion that is best to just wait now until the Property Chambers written decision is issued - to finally conclude matters one way or the other. It is only going to be another 9 or so days, so I think I will wait until then

They (is it me?'s friend, it would appear has never actually posted in this thread, unless they have never identified themselves as his friend and Is It me? only ever posts to agree with something apple has said or to demand answers to his questions) might have the borrowers best interests at heart but by misinterpreting the law - they are not helping anyone I like to think that you also refer to me(being one of the other posters that have contributed to this thread) as having the borrowers best interests at heart, in my long running battle with Apple to post the truth about the law instead of interpretations and fanciful ideas as, has been shown today Besides which, I feel DB has shown an indepth understanding of this thread and the topics that have been discussed

apple said "Let me leave you with the thought" As for leaving people with thoughts... Here is one for you, you have been and are wrong about virtually everything you have posted about property law in this thread. You have held onto your misunderstanding of Garguilo for almost a year and have encouraged people to make applications based partly on your misunderstanding of Garguilo.. How many times have you posted about gargulio and relied upon what you thought it said, rather than what it actually said, only now to accept that you were wrong all along ? Clearly, you never actually took the time to read Garguilo and understand what it actually says, you just went running head first off with your interpretations ( as usual) - leaving the people that have made the applications to pick up the pieces - Great work there Apple, you have done yourself proud - well done With all this talk of beer gardens, I think I will have a beer later to celebrate this day 11 February 2014 - the day Apple finally accepted and admitted he/she was wrong about something

Apple grow up, I know it is a bitter pill for you to swallow today that for the first time, since the begining of time, you have admitted you have been wrong about something but please just read and not interpret my posts. ( I think I have asked you at least five times previously) I have very clearly said s.1 applies to deeds and s.2 applies to contracts - now you have been proved to your own satisfaction that you are wrong, you want to cloud the distinction between s.1 and s.2 - nice try but it does not work Unlike it has now been proven with Garguilo, can you please bother to actually read the cases and legislation referred too I am disappointed with you, I thought we had finally been able to make progress. Please stop with your need to interpret, as shown today with Garguilo, your interpretations are wrong and a waste of everyones time

I was being sarcastic as you said you was waiting for Ben to reply, after I already had - However, lets not allow that to detract from the progress we have made today - You finally admitting you was wrong, is a very important first step in correcting a lot of the things posted in this thread. For me it is a more important first step than Neil Amstrong's first step on the moon and in a similar way your first step is 'one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind" Now the problem is the people that have made applications based on your previous incorrect understanding of GARGUILO - I need to go and refresh my memory about what they were led to believe

s.1 applies to deeds only s.2 applies to contracts only

I think you need to re-read my post I was using s.2 as an example to explain the word 'incorporated' s.1 which applies to deeds includes no such stipulation

Ben has if you read my previous post and pretty much all of my other posts in this thread anything related to s.2 and deeds, you have to put down and step back away from slowly s.2 does not apply to deeds - it is as simple as that Judges will hear s.2 and deeds and immediately the shutters will come down - I think Jotho (sorry if I spelt it wrong) will confirm this is exactly what happened to them (in addition to Lamb and Fergus)

A deed does not have to comply with s.2 From Eagle Star 15.In my judgment this argument does not stand any real prospect of success. This is not a case of a contract: it is a case of a deed. If we were simply dealing with a contract to create a mortgage then Mr Green would be right. But in this case he and Miss Challis have actually executed a deed. It is clear from the provisions of the 1989 Act itself that a distinction is drawn between the formal requirements affecting the execution of deeds and the formal requirements governing contracts. Section 1 makes alterations to the law about the execution of deeds. For example, they are no longer required to be written on any particular kind of substance and a seal is not required for the valid execution of an instrument as a deed by an individual. There are a number of detailed provisions in section 1 relating to deeds. Section 2 does not apply to deeds; it applies to contracts. It may be a contract for the sale of land, it may be a contract for some other kind of disposition of an interest in land, one other kind of disposition being a transfer by way of security over what is commonly called a mortgage or charge. From Helden 28. As is spelt out in its opening words, section 2 is concerned with "a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land". Its purpose is also clear from the fact that it replaced section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and from the contents (and indeed the title) of the interesting and full Law Commission report which initiated it – Transfer of Land: Formalities for Contracts For Sale etc. of Land (Law Com. No. 364). The section was directed to tightening up the formalities required for contracts for the creation or transfer of interests or estates in land, and it was not concerned with documents which actually create or transfer legal estates or interests in land. This conclusion is consistent with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the High Court in McLaughlin v Duffill [2008] EWCA Civ 1627, [2010] Ch 1, paras 20-21, approving the reasoning of HH Judge Hicks QC in Target Holdings Ltd v Priestly 79 P & CR 305, para 51. You mention s.2 during a hearing and your sunk before you even start because of cases such as Eagle Star, Helden and even Lamb and Fergus, I would take s.2 out of the picture completely, when discussing or arguing about deeds - for a legal representative it is by far a too easy a door to close, during a hearing, leaving the borrower in difficulty The Judge will just say s.2 does not apply to deeds, leaving the borrower standing there looking ????????? and any arguments based upon deeds and s.2 in the bin

This is a first I think, a date I will write in my diary - the day Apple actually concedes they are wrong about something - This demonstrates the value of the debates on sites such as CAG. Now imagine, if the solicitor for the lender, made the same points as I have just done, during an actual hearing... it would be too late for the borrower to counter - the borrower would be up the creek without a paddle relying on an argument previously proposed and championed by this thread I think I am still in a state of shock, for the first time in nearly a year, I feel like we have actually made some progress

You don't have to wait long, as I have just done it

scrub that, s.2 provides you with an answer http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 "The terms may be incorporated in a document either by being set out in it or by reference to some other document." "or by reference to some other document" from the accord mortgage deed Incorporated does not mean they have to be in the actual document, it can mean that they are referenced to some other document, such as - 'The mortgage incorporates the Mortgage Conditions a copy of which the Borrower and any Guarantor has received' s.1 which relates to actual deeds, includes no such stipulation anyway, unlike s.2 which relates to contracts

At last we have progress - finally the "it" is the deed - that has taken me nearly a year of hard work I honestly didn't think this day would ever come, lucky I am sitting down, otherwise I would have collapsed in shock There is a case that answers your question about t&c's, I will find it and post it for you (I need to find it first)

The "it" is the actual deed "(the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed" It says it very clearly 63. Section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, so far as relevant, provides as follows: ‘An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if, (a) it is signed - The '"it" is signed' refers to the deed being signed "(the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed"

Apple please for one day, just read what it says 68.Underhill J then went on to consider what he described as the additional factor that each of the three key documents was intended to be a deed. He set out the provisions of section 1(3) and said: ‘Mr Bird submitted, and I agree, that that language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed.’ [40]. He also stated: ‘ I accept that the flaws on which HMRC rely are essentially formal. But I see nothing wrong in applying a strict test of formality to the validity of the agreements with which we are concerned in this case. The entire raison d’etre is to create – and demonstrably to create – a series of formal legal relationships: if they do not do that, they do nothing.’ Please note - " the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed.’ and from your post "refer back to the instrument in question. This means the entire document" What does the case, you rely upon actually say the "it" is ? what is the instrument in question ? what is the entire document ?- the deed

You have to remember in GARGUILO "61. The submission on this point is that, even without forgery being demonstrated, the mere fact that the signatory pages of the Lease were, as I have found, executed separately and inserted into the Lease invalidates the instrument as a matter of law. 62. It is perhaps worth summarising the evidence on this. Mr Wright received only the executed pages (which must have included the plan) at some time after his meeting with Mr Westwood and Mr Moore. They were not given to him by Mr Westwood, but by an unknown person (probably Mr Moore or Linda Stevens). Mr Wright lodged these pages only with Mr Truelove on a different occasion from the handing over of the other executed leases. Mr Wright left Mr Truelove to ‘insert’ the executed pages into the two deeds Mr Truelove already held. " This is not the case with a mortgage deed (as shown by the accord mortgage deed), as the signature page is not separate from the deed and is not therefore, inserted at a later date. It is actually incorporated into the deed itself Which explains why the Property Chamber said to Is It Me? "The authorities relied on by the applicants concerned whether documents had been properly executed and not whether a lender is required to execute a charge."

Now that is strange because as I have just posted - "‘Mr Bird submitted, and I agree, that that language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed." Going by the above the "it" constitutes the deed itself On well, don't worry about it (no pun intended) - it is just something else for us to disagree about From GARGUILO: "63. Section 1(3) of the 1989 Act, so far as relevant, provides as follows: ‘An instrument is validly executed as a deed by an individual if, and only if, (a) it is signed - (i) by him in the presence of a witness who attests his signature’ 64. The Applicant’s argument proceeds as follows. The ‘it’ in part (a) must refer back to the instrument in question. This means the entire document, and not merely the execution pages or any other page." 68...... "‘Mr Bird submitted, and I agree, that that language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed."................ The document (the instrument in question) being a deed

It is good your glad, both times I popped in yesterday when you was here you logged off immediately, I was starting to take it personal lol

Let's completely ignore that the Property Chamber has already told Is It Me? that he was wrong to rely upon Garguilo as an applicable authority for a moment. (1) Andrew Francis Garguilo (2) Jennifer Margaret Garguilo v (1) Jon Howard Gershinson (2) Louisa Brooks both acting as Joint Fixed Charge Receivers of Desmond Daniel Charles Moore in respect of Flat 4, Station Court, 140A High Street, Godalming (Deeds : Execution) [2012] EWLandRA 2011_0377 (06 January 2012) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2012/2011_0377.html 68.Underhill J then went on to consider what he described as the additional factor that each of the three key documents was intended to be a deed. He set out the provisions of section 1(3) and said: ‘Mr Bird submitted, and I agree, that that language necessarily involves that the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed.’ [40]. He also stated: ‘ I accept that the flaws on which HMRC rely are essentially formal. But I see nothing wrong in applying a strict test of formality to the validity of the agreements with which we are concerned in this case. The entire raison d’etre is to create – and demonstrably to create – a series of formal legal relationships: if they do not do that, they do nothing.’ Please note - " the signature and attestation must form part of the same physical document (the ‘it’) referred to at (a) which constitutes the deed.’ What is the "it" exactly ? (hint look up a couple of lines) 69. It is correct to say that in the Mercury case there were differences between the two versions of the documents. This is not the case here. There is only one version of the Lease. But it seems to me that section 1(3) clearly provides that the signature and attestation must form part of the physical instrument at the moment of signing. This requirement stands alone, regardless of whether there were earlier drafts (which may or may not have been materially different). The policy argument is that the signature should reflect the proper agreement: if the signature is obtained separately the maker cannot be sure of the terms of the deed and the risk of fraud or mistake remains. Please note - But it seems to me that section 1(3) clearly provides that the signature and attestation must form part of the physical instrument at the moment of signing. This requirement stands alone, regardless of whether there were earlier drafts (which may or may not have been materially different). Now lets look at a mortgage deed, we will use the accord deed as an example as accord relates to this thread. In the now infamous (and often misinterpreted case of Garguilo) - it was said the "it" was in fact the actual deed The signature and attestation must form part of the "it" (the deed) at the moment of signing - being subject to section 1 of the LP (MP) A 1989 Now to the accord mortgage deed http://www.accordmortgages.com/documents/ACCL0002-Mortgage-Deed-E&W.pdf Now we need to establish if the signature and attestation forms part of "it" (the deed) - when we look at the "it" we find We find that signature and attestation does form part of "it" In Garguilo (as posted above) it is said "The policy argument is that the signature should reflect the proper agreement: if the signature is obtained separately the maker cannot be sure of the terms of the deed and the risk of fraud or mistake remains." In the case of the accord mortgage deed the maker (that would be the borrower) the signature is not obtained separately and the maker can be sure of the terms - Hence why the Property Chamber has already said that reliance on Garguilo is misplaced.

Or it could be read - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/34/section/2 2 Contracts for sale etc. of land to be made by signed writing. (1)A contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land can only be made in writing and only by incorporating all the terms which the parties have expressly agreed in one document or, where contracts are exchanged, in each. A contract for the sale or a contract for a other disposition of an interest in land After all, must never over look that s.2 is about contracts and nothing to do with deeds Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542 (11 May 2011) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/542.html 27. Mr Helden's case on section 2 is hopeless. It proceeds on a fundamental misunderstanding of the reach and purpose of that section, a misunderstanding, it is fair to say, which appears to be not uncommon. Section 2 is concerned with contracts for the creation or sale of legal estates or interests in land, not with documents which actually create or transfer such estates or interests. So a contract to transfer a freehold or a lease in the future, a contract to grant a lease in the future, or a contract for a mortgage in the future, are all within the reach of the section, provided of course the ultimate subject matter is land. However, an actual transfer, conveyance or assignment, an actual lease, or an actual mortgage are not within the scope of section 2 at all. contracts (keyword) for the creation or sale of legal estates or interest in land 28. As is spelt out in its opening words, section 2 is concerned with "a contract for the sale or other disposition of an interest in land". Its purpose is also clear from the fact that it replaced section 40 of the Law of Property Act 1925, and from the contents (and indeed the title) of the interesting and full Law Commission report which initiated it – Transfer of Land: Formalities for Contracts For Sale etc. of Land (Law Com. No. 364). The section was directed to tightening up the formalities required for contracts for the creation or transfer of interests or estates in land, and it was not concerned with documents which actually create or transfer legal estates or interests in land. This conclusion is consistent with the view expressed by the Chancellor of the High Court in McLaughlin v Duffill [2008] EWCA Civ 1627, [2010] Ch 1, paras 20-21, approving the reasoning of HH Judge Hicks QC in Target Holdings Ltd v Priestly 79 P & CR 305, para 51.

I know what you mean, for example when someone can't understand the word "or" it causes them to misunderstand lots of things

Something else that may interest you DB Helden v Strathmore Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 542 (11 May 2011) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/542.html 9. On 31 March 2006, Mr Helden executed a legal charge ("the 2006 Charge") in favour of Strathmore. This provided for the Property to be charged "by way of a legal mortgage with the payment to [strathmore] of the debt to be paid by [Mr Helden]". The 2006 Charge, stipulated that Mr Helden would pay to Strathmore "on [31 March 2007] the amount of the Debt". Against "The Debt" and "Interest Rate" there was written "In accordance with the offer letter". No such letter had in fact been prepared. The 2006 Charge included a provision for Mr Helden's fiancée, now his second wife, to countersign in the presence of an independent solicitor to confirm her consent, which she duly did. The 2006 Charge was duly registered at HM Land Registry. Remember what we have been told in this thread about "by way of legal mortgage" ? (as in a borrower has no statutory power to grant one) Yet in 2006 Mr Helden executed a legal charge in favour of the lender which provided for the property to be charged by way of legal mortgage No mention of sub-mortgage

lol I was being sarcastic - I meant that you should not ignore that the Judge relied upon s.1 as one of the reasons to dismiss the appeal