is an English land law case, concerning the behaviour of receivers appointed under mortgages. It affirmed the proposition that a lender (and its agents or receivers) are not required to incur expenses that would likely delay a sale beyond the normal period of marketing.
In 1996, Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) appointed receivers over 33 properties mortgaged by Silven Properties to it, and proceeded to sell them off. The receivers explored planning and letting out the properties, but decided to sell them straight away. Silven alleged that RBS's receivers were under a duty to maximise the value by getting planning permission for development and letting out of vacant properties.
In the Chancery Division, Patten J held that neither the mortgagee nor receiver were required to incur expenses that would likely delay a sale beyond the normal period of marketing. This was supported by the cases of Cuckmere Brick Co v Mutual Finance, Downsview Nominees Ltd v First City Corporation Ltd, and Medforth v Blake.
Lightman J held that RBS had not breached its duty. A duty is owed in equity (rather than tort) but it was not breached on the facts.
Silven's reasoning was also held to apply to other forms of mortgages in Den Norske Bank ASA v Acemex Management Company Ltd. which was handed down several days later. As Longmore LJ noted in his ruling: