Fletcher _Franz_ V Jamaican Redevelopment Foundation.pdf

heard by a single judge of appeal who refused injunctive relief. That decision wasreviewed by the Full Court which has not yet given its decision.[10] Miss Merline Pattterson, the loan recovery manager of the Jamaican branch ofthe respondent deposed in her affidavit that the covenant in the mortgages restrainingthe mortgagor from dealing with the properties without the consent of the mortgageeswas a provision expressly included to guard against the situation which currentlyobtained, as by registration of the mortgage third parties would also have notice of thecovenant. The question of formal or informal consent, she said, therefore did not arise.She further deposed that the Banana Walk property was part of a suite of securitiesgiven by Ruby Fletcher to cover the indebtedness of the company, and the redemptionof the mortgage required the settlement of the entire indebtedness or such compromiseas agreed. She said that Mr Franz Fletcher had negotiated a conditional agreement andreferred to correspondence which was supposed to have captured the same, (but thatletter seemed to indicate that those negotiations were conducted on behalf of thecompany). She denied that the respondent had refused any attempts made to redeemthe mortgage, but instead said that the respondent had postponed enforcing itsmortgage while it gave the company and those acting on behalf of the mortgagors anopportunity to settle the indebtedness. As no payments were made, and noarrangements concluded with undertakings or otherwise to satisfy the defendant, theproperties, including Banana Walk, were put up for auction, but there were no bids.[11] Miss Patterson said that there was no basis for the 2 nd claimants to claim thatthey were bona fide purchasers as they were bound by the respondent’s registered