Ivan Kaye v Amanda Lees

Ivan Kaye v Amanda Lees

The court found that the evidence did not establish that Ms Lees 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. Additionally, the longstanding and substantial judgment debt, lack of engagement by Ms Lees, and repeated use of moratoria without repayment plans unfairly prejudiced Mr Kaye. The court cancelled the current moratorium and granted an injunction restraining Ms Lees from seeking further moratoria, subject to liberty to apply.

Parties
Claimant: Ivan Kaye; Defendant: Amanda Lees
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 January 2023
Procedural Posture
Application to Cancel Mental Health Crisis Moratorium / Judgment on Application
Outcome
Application granted
Legal Topics
Debt Respite Scheme, Mental Health Crisis Moratorium, Enforcement of Judgment, Injunctions, Material Irregularity
Civil Procedure Mental Health Law Debt Recovery Debt Respite Scheme Mental Health Crisis Moratorium Enforcement of Judgment Injunctions Material Irregularity

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ivan Kaye

Claimant

Amanda Lees

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Cancel Mental Health Crisis Moratorium / Judgment on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the conditions for a mental health crisis moratorium under Regulation 28(2)(e) were met
  2. 2 Whether the moratorium unfairly prejudices the interests of the creditor
  3. 3 Whether there was a material irregularity in the grant of the moratorium

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the evidence did not establish that Ms Lees 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. Additionally, the longstanding and substantial judgment debt, lack of engagement by Ms Lees, and repeated use of moratoria without repayment plans unfairly prejudiced Mr Kaye. The court cancelled the current moratorium and granted an injunction restraining Ms Lees from seeking further moratoria, subject to liberty to apply.

Court Disposition

Application granted

Orders

  • The current mental health crisis moratorium is cancelled.
  • Ms Lees is restrained from seeking a further breathing space or mental health crisis moratorium for a specified period, subject to liberty to apply to vary or discharge the injunction.