There were two security properties. The loan went into default and consent judgment was agreed. Under the terms of the consent judgement the possession in relation to one property was stayed for 3 months to allow it to be sold and in relation to the other for 2 years.
The lender later obtained writs of possession. The borrower sought to have both writs set aside, on the grounds there had been no breach of the terms.
The court found that under the terms, the stay in relation to the first property did not run past the 3 months point and accordingly the lender was entitled to possession of that property after that date. In particular, it was not necessary to show that the borrower had breached any of the terms.
However the stay in relation to the second property extended for two years provided there had been no default, which the court found to mean non-payment of interest during the stay period. The court found no evidence of any breaches and as the stay period had not expired, found that the lender was not entitled to possession of the second property and set aside that writ of possession.