Kaye v Lees [2023] EWHC 152 (KB) (27 January 2023)

Kaye v Lees [2023] EWHC 152 (KB) (27 January 2023)

The evidence did not establish that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder of a serious nature or receiving crisis, emergency, or acute care as required by Regulation 28(2)(e); there was a material irregularity in the grant of the moratorium. The moratorium unfairly prejudiced the claimant as a judgment creditor. The court cancelled the moratorium and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from seeking further moratoria without permission and supporting evidence.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 152 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Ivan Kaye; Defendant: Amanda Lees
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
High Court Application Under Debt Respite Scheme Regulations / Judgment on Creditor's Application to Cancel Mental Health Crisis Moratorium and for Injunctive Relief
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Debt Respite Scheme, Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, Enforcement of Judgments, Injunctions, Material Irregularity, Unfair Prejudice
Civil Procedure Mental Health Law Debt Recovery Debt Respite Scheme Mental Health Crisis Moratorium Enforcement of Judgments Injunctions Material Irregularity +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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Kaye

Claimant

Amanda Lees

Defendant

Procedural Posture

High Court Application Under Debt Respite Scheme Regulations / Judgment on Creditor's Application to Cancel Mental Health Crisis Moratorium and for Injunctive Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions for a mental health crisis moratorium under Regulation 28(2)(e) were met at the date of grant
  2. 2 Whether there was a material irregularity justifying cancellation of the moratorium
  3. 3 Whether the moratorium unfairly prejudiced the creditor's interests

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence did not establish that the defendant was suffering from a mental disorder of a serious nature or receiving crisis, emergency, or acute care as required by Regulation 28(2)(e); there was a material irregularity in the grant of the moratorium. The moratorium unfairly prejudiced the claimant as a judgment creditor. The court cancelled the moratorium and granted an injunction restraining the defendant from seeking further moratoria without permission and supporting evidence.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • Current mental health crisis moratorium cancelled under Regulation 19(3)
  • Defendant restrained by injunction from seeking further breathing space or mental health crisis moratorium for a specified period, subject to liberty to apply to vary or discharge on notice with supporting evidence