Seculink Ltd v David James Terence Forbes

The called in capital is not a moratorium debt under the Regulations; the definition of 'arrears' and the express exclusion of 'capitalised mortgage arrears' indicate Parliament's intention to keep capital in the category of non-eligible debt, not as arrears; therefore, principal does not qualify as a moratorium debt and is not subject to moratorium restrictions.

Parties: Appellant/claimant: Seculink Ltd; Respondent/defendant: David James Terence Forbes
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 03 November 2025
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Second Judgment on Point of Statutory Interpretation
Outcome: Point decided in favour of appellant; called in capital is not a moratorium debt.
Legal Topics: Debt Respite Scheme, Breathing Space Moratorium, Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, Secured Debt, Arrears

Debt Recovery Property Law Statutory Interpretation Debt Respite Scheme Breathing Space Moratorium Mental Health Crisis Moratorium Secured Debt Arrears

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 1 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Seculink Ltd

Appellant/claimant

David James Terence Forbes

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Second Judgment on Point of Statutory Interpretation

Legal Issues

1 Whether principal under a secured debt which has fallen due is a 'moratorium debt' under the Debt Respite Scheme Regulations 2020

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Point decided in favour of appellant; called in capital is not a moratorium debt.