I agree with you in this regard, however I expect significant fallout from the judgement, indeed the very fact of Danske bank attempting to import extra powers ( informing the borrower that the receiver is attorney for the mortgagor ) within a deed of appointment of a receiver that are not contained within the mortgage debenture could render such receivership appointments void ab initio, see the Masters comments on the matter below: “It is noted that the receiver… is agent of the mortgagor and, so far as is necessary (?), shall be attorney of the mortgagor and the mortgagor alone shall be responsible for his acts.” This recital does not tally with the legal position in this case. There is no question of the receiver enjoying the status of attorney for the mortgagor, and neither is he the agent of the mortgagor if he exercises the mortgagee’s power of sale, which power is not listed in the 1881 Act. The recital is, in short, an actionable misrepresentation on the part of the plaintiff bank. It was rather late in the day for the bank to try unilaterally protect its position. If the receiver’s actions have unlawfully caused the defendants loss, the bank, as the receiver’s principal, will be liable.