Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company v Hancock [2021] EWHC 259 (Ch) (11 February 2021)

Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company v Hancock [2021] EWHC 259 (Ch) (11 February 2021)

The court held that the Deed of Assignment required execution by both assignor and assignee to be effective, but the debtor was not entitled to an unredacted copy as a precondition to payment demand. The allegations of unfair relationship and mis-selling were unsupported by credible evidence and did not raise a substantial dispute. Summary judgment and possession orders were appropriate. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 259 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/creditor: Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company; Defendant/debtor: Anthony Leslie Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Chancery Appeal and Bankruptcy Proceedings / Appeal From Decisions of DDJ Williams (14 May 2019) and HHJ Hodge QC (30 September 2019)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; statutory demand set aside only as to costs; possession order and monetary judgment upheld.
Legal Topics
Bankruptcy Statutory Demand, Assignment of Debt, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974, Summary Judgment, Possession Proceedings, Execution of Deeds, Notice of Assignment
Insolvency Property Law Contract Law Consumer Credit Bankruptcy Statutory Demand Assignment of Debt Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 Summary Judgment +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company

Claimant/creditor

Anthony Leslie Hancock

Defendant/debtor

Procedural Posture

Chancery Appeal and Bankruptcy Proceedings / Appeal From Decisions of DDJ Williams (14 May 2019) and HHJ Hodge QC (30 September 2019)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statutory demand in bankruptcy should be set aside due to alleged defects in the Deed of Assignment
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment and possession orders were appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the Deed of Assignment required execution by both assignor and assignee to be effective, but the debtor was not entitled to an unredacted copy as a precondition to payment demand. The allegations of unfair relationship and mis-selling were unsupported by credible evidence and did not raise a substantial dispute. Summary judgment and possession orders were appropriate. There was no realistic prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal refused; statutory demand set aside only as to costs; possession order and monetary judgment upheld.

Orders

  • Refusal of permission to appeal HHJ Hodge QC's decision
  • Refusal of stay of execution of possession order