Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company v Hancock

Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company v Hancock

The court held that Promontoria's assignment was valid under Section 136 as the assignor executed the deed and notice was given; Mr. Hancock failed to provide credible evidence of unfairness or loss under Section 140A; summary determination was appropriate as defences lacked substance; Promontoria's excessive redaction caused evidential difficulties but did not invalidate the assignment.

Parties
Claimant/creditor: Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company; Defendant/debtor: Anthony Leslie Hancock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Bankruptcy Application / Judgment on Appeal and Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Appeal by Promontoria dismissed; application for permission to appeal by Mr. Hancock refused.
Legal Topics
Statutory Demand, Assignment of Debt, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Summary Judgment, Execution of Deeds
Insolvency Property Law Contract Law Consumer Credit Statutory Demand Assignment of Debt Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Summary Judgment +1 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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Pine) Designated Activity Company

Claimant/creditor

Anthony Leslie Hancock

Defendant/debtor

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Bankruptcy Application / Judgment on Appeal and Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Deed of Assignment was validly executed and effective to transfer AIB's rights to Promontoria
  2. 2 Whether there was an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether summary determination was appropriate

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Promontoria's assignment was valid under Section 136 as the assignor executed the deed and notice was given; Mr. Hancock failed to provide credible evidence of unfairness or loss under Section 140A; summary determination was appropriate as defences lacked substance; Promontoria's excessive redaction caused evidential difficulties but did not invalidate the assignment.

Court Disposition

Appeal by Promontoria dismissed; application for permission to appeal by Mr. Hancock refused.

Orders

  • Mr. Hancock's application for permission to appeal refused.
  • Promontoria's appeal against DDJ Williams' decision dismissed.