Hi there(posted 7915 days ago)I suspect that the CA decision means that it doesn't matter whether the promise to repay was included as a covenant or not.
As s.20 was held to apply to principal, my feeling is that the 12 years under s.20(1) will apply to all loans that were secured by mortgage or legal charge (with a 6 year limit for interest under s.20 (5)). If the decision had been based on the 12 years for a specialty under s.8, the fact that some or all of the terms and conditions were not contained in a document under seal (i.e were not under a covenant) things might be different. But the court found that s.20 applied and not s.8.
Anyone have any other thoughts?
All the best
Guy