Just a few of the many significant cases we have litigated:
Intrum Uk Finance Limited v B… (County Court at Sheffield (June 2022) – Intrum lose Appeal against finding of lower court to that the Claimant is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and is accordingly not entitled to bring the claim the claim struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and (b) – Appellant/ claimant represented by Henderson Chambers in Appeal and by Gough Square Chambers in lower court. The claim was for monies owing under a Halifax PLC credit card agreement
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Goodinson (Court of Appeal Ref B2/2020/0436) (Jan 2021)– Application for permission to appeal for a second time granted on a preliminary issue – The DDJ found on the balance of probabilities that a default notice compliant with the Consume Credit Act 1974 was sent on 3 December 2012 and the Circuit Judge held that he was entitled so to find. Although question of fact real prospect of success – raises an important principle or practice as to the extent which the existence of a compliant statutory notice can be inferred.
Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd v Steeds  EWHC 693 (QB) High Court: Renewed application for permission to appeal a refusal of specific disclosure in the context of an allegation of judicial bias / unfair hearing.
Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd  EWCA Civ 907,  4 WLR 100 (Floyd LJ, Henderson LJ and Flaux LJ–) Court of Appeal – Redaction of a Document – where a court is asked to construe a document, the whole of the document, without redactions, should ordinarily be placed before the court, though the position may be different in the context of a statutory demand by an assignee of a loan – Irrelevance not a proper ground for redaction – Confidentiality not a general ground for redaction – solicitor certification not normally appropriate
Cabot Financial (UK) Limited v Dean (County Court at Basildon) (2020) – Claimant instructed Gough Square Chambers – Claim for monies owing under a consumer credit loan agreement – Default Judgment obtained – Defendants application to set aside- part heard – Claimant consents to set aside and dismissal of claim
Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v Ogundu (County Court at Manchester) – permission to appeal granted – real arguments that his obligation to the claimant was extinguished by the Prescription and Limitation (Scotland) Act 1973 and that the claimant is not entitled to enforce debt sue to breach of S.78 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 – (Claimant subsequently consented to appeal and dismissal of claim).
PRA Group (UK) Limited v McElligott (Court of Appeal Ref B2/2020/01444) (Feb 2020) – permission to appeal granted on Ground 1 – The learned Judge was wrong to refuse, and/or there was a serious procedural irregularity in refusing, the Appellant’s application to rely on the Data Protection Act/GPDR in the appeal hearing below- (Claimant subsequently consented to the appeal and dismissal of the claim)
Idem Capital Securities Limited v W….. (HHJ sitting as a Circuit Judge at Chester County Court) (2019) – Instructed to appeal decision below – Claimant not authorised by Financial Conduct Authority to exercise the rights of a lender and bring proceedings in county court – appeal granted, and claim dismissed as unenforceable pursuant to S. 26A (4) of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (as amended)
Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd  EWHC 2646 (Ch) High Court: A substantive insolvency appeal hearing in respect of whether or not an alleged creditor could actually show good title to certain alleged debts. Appeal considered detailed issues as to construction/interpretation of an Assignment and Assumption Deed.
Intrum UK Finance Limited v B (County Court at Sheffield (2019) – Claim for monies owing under a Halifax PLC credit card agreement – Defendants application for claim to be struck out – Upon the court finding that the Claimant is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority and is accordingly not entitled to bring the claim the claim struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2) (a) and (b) – claimant represented by Gough Square Chambers
Hoist Finance Uk Holdings 1 Limited v Sewell (County Court at Wandsworth) (2019) – Claim for monies owing under a Barclaycard credit card agreement – claim dismissed – credit agreement found not to be compliant with Section 61 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974- missing prescribed terms – irredeemably unenforceable pursuant to S.127 (3) of the Act.
Marlin Europe 1 Limited v Dzirvinskis (before CJ at Gloucester County Court) (May 2019)- (Claimant part of Cabot Credit Management Group) represented by Gough Square Chambers- Claim for monies owing under a HSBC Bank plc consumer credit loan agreement and a HSBC Bank plc personal current account overdraft – claim dismissed as claimant could not prove title and the loan agreement and current account were unenforceable.
Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Watson (County Court at Blackpool) (2019) Claim for monies owing under a MBNA Europe Bank Limited credit card agreement – Defendants application for Summary Judgment and/or the Claim to be struck out as no cause of action pleaded and the Claimant is not authorised by the Financial Conduct Authority to issue a claim in the county court- Particulars of Claim struck out, Summary Judgment for the Defendant, claim dismissed and costs on the indemnity basis.
Hancock v Promontoria Pine Designated Activity Company (2019) (Liverpool County Court, Business and Property) We were successful in applying to set aside a statutory demand in the sum of £650,000 brought by an Irish based debt purchasing company on the issue of was the assignment from Allied Irish Bank effective and whether the creditor had title to bring insolvency proceedings.
MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan West (2019) (Cambridge County Court) – We were unsuccessful at first instance and the Claimant obtained Judgment against our client. The Judgment was successfully appealed after a four-day appeal before HHJ Walden Smith on the issue of assignment and the current account overdraft itself was declared to be unenforceable under s.127(3) the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
The issue of the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001 still needs to be determined at a higher court.
Lowell Portfolio 1 Ltd v R (2019) (Oxford County Court) successful appeal– although not pleaded in litigant in person defence claimant had not complied with s.78 CCA 1974 and no evidence that a compliant default notice was served.
Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Limited  EWHC 2934 (Ch) High Court (Rolls Building) – ( Barling J – on appeal from DDJ Wright, Liverpool County Court) (2019) applications for permission to appeal a lower court decision not to set aside the statutory demand, to extend the time for appealing and rely on a ground that had not been disputed in the court below. Appellant granted permission to appeal on the issue of whether the Respondent, an assignee, had title to the debt.
National Westminster Bank Plc v Chen (2018) (Dudley County Court): Successfully set aside a summary judgment for over £22,000 in an application where the defendant had delayed in making an application to set aside the judgment upon receiving notice of a final charging order during enforcement proceedings.
Wright v Emirates NBD PJSC (Manchester County Court) Successful in setting aside a statutory demand issued for an Emirates credit card debt
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Cliff (2018) (Peterborough County Court ) Successfully appealed the decision in the 2 preliminary issues of defective default notice and noncompliance with s.78 CCA 1974. Claim dismissed.
Intrum UK Limited v Freeman (County Court at Maidstone) (2018) Claim for monies owing under a Lloyds TSB consumer credit loan agreement – claim dismissed as credit agreement unenforceable under S.77, A77A and S.87 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (as amended)
IDR Finance UK Limited v Harris (2018) – (Southend County Court) we successfully defended this three day multi-track Consumer Credit Act case before HHJ Auerbach. Issues regarding assignment, enforceability of credit agreement, invalidity of the default and termination notices, failure to comply with a Section 78 CCA 1974 request. The case is also notable for a preliminary decision by the Circuit Judge that posts made on the online consumer rights forum Legal Beagles were not protected by privilege and could be relied upon by the Claimant.
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Boorman (2017) (Brighton County Court) PRA had obtained judgment in the lower court. Permission to appeal was initially refused by HHJ Simpkiss on paper but subsequently granted at an oral reconsideration hearing before HHJ Coltart. Two day appeal took before HHJ Simpkiss who allowed the appeal and dismissed the claim as he found that PRA were unable to prove that title had been assigned to them
PRA Group (UK ) Limited v Mayhew (2017) (Central London County Court) – Recorder Bellamy in PRA Group (UK) Limited v Mayhew, at the end of a three day multi track trial, dismissed PRA’s claim against our client as he found the reconstituted MBNA credit card agreements to be irredeemably unenforceable and that the unredacted Deeds of Assignment had not proved an assignment from MBNA to PRA.
Stale debts sued for on the back of 2 ‘reconstituted’ MBNA credit card agreements (May 1999 and October 2000) were held irredeemably unenforceable under S.127(3) CCA 1974. The evidence of an honest witness was preferred to that of so called “reconstituted agreements”. After 3 days of close forensic examination of, and legal argument about, evidence and documents from both PRA and MBNA stating that our client’s specific debt had been assigned, the court held that no assignment had been proved. This decision shows that just saying an agreement is enforceable and producing a “reconstituted” copy does not prove that it is enforceable. Just saying an agreement has been assigned and producing a notice saying it has been assigned does not prove legal assignment.
HSBC Bank PLC v Sparkes (2017) (Weston-super-mare County Court) Successfully obtained summary judgment against the claimant, HSBC Bank PLC in a claim brought for a HSBC credit card debt.
PRA Group (UK) Limited v Johnson (2016)– (Blackpool County Court) The defendant had represented himself as a litigant in person and had only pleaded limitation as a defence. Summary Judgment had been handed down in the sum of £14,000 and the defendant had paid the Judgment . Successfully appealed on a matter of law that the prescribed terms within the regulated consumer credit agreement before the court below were illegible. An order was also obtained for a repayment of the monies paid to PRA Group (UK) Limited). The claim was subsequently discontinued.
Nationwide Building Society v Burns (2016) (HHJ Hodge QC – on appeal from DDJ Heseltine, Birkenhead County Court) – successfully appealed a case management decision relating to the court’s refusal to allow an application to rely on an amended defence. We were also successful in appealing a possession order and money judgment for £250,000 made at a summary hearing on the basis that the lender’s failure to provide consent for proposed leases over the secured property created an unfair relationship within the meaning of s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
Brookes v HSBC Bank PLC  EWCA Civ 354 A Claimant who discontinues his/her claim has a high hurdle to clear to displace the normal rule that the defendant should recover his costs. The claimants had discontinued following the provision of compliant s.78 CCA 1974 documentation and sought their costs. The Court of Appeal held that the appropriate order was that the Claimant bear the costs up to the date of service of compliant s.78 CCA 1974 documentation and that thereafter there be no order for costs.
Lloyds TSB Bank Plc v Simpson (2010) (Isle of Wight County Court) – Successfully defended an application for summary Judgment. The Lloyd TSB Section 87(1) CCA 1974 Default Notice template was found to be invalid as the template was missing required statutory wording.
Carey v HSBC Bank Plc  EWHC 3417 (QB) (Manchester High Court) Joanna Connolly acted for the claimant Carey in the s.78 Consumer Credit Act 1974 test case. This test case established the documentation a creditor must provide a borrower with in order to satisfy a s.78 CCA 1974 request. A creditor can provide a reconstituted copy of the executed agreement, though it can omit the signature box. The agreement must contain the name and address of the debtor as it was at the time of execution, and if the terms of the credit agreement have been varied, i.e credit cards, the varied terms applicable either at the date of the request, if the agreement is still ongoing, or at the date of default/termination.