Chapman (t/a Chapman & Co. Solicitors) v Wilson & Ors

Chapman (t/a Chapman & Co. Solicitors) v Wilson & Ors

The Loan Agreement was valid and enforceable as a contract and not a bill of sale; the Assignments, though registered, failed to comply with the form requirements of the Bills of Sale Act 1882 and were void as security over personal chattels (files), but remained effective as assignments of the income stream (choses in action). Mr Chapman consented to the removal of files, negating any claim for conversion or unlawful interference. LawFinance was entitled to the sums due under the Loan Agreement and to the income from the scheduled cases.

Parties
Claimant: Carl Richard Chapman (trading as Chapman & Co. Solicitors); Defendant: David Frederick Wilson; Defendant: Julian Nigel Richard Pitts; Defendant: LawFinance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed; counterclaim substantially allowed.
Legal Topics
Bills of Sale, Security Interests, Solicitors' Liens, Conversion, Enforcement of Security, Personal Chattels, Conditional Fee Agreements, Registration of Security, Assignment of Receivables
Commercial Law Banking and Finance Law Property Law Tort Law Bills of Sale Security Interests Solicitors' Liens Conversion +5 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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carl Richard Chapman (trading as Chapman & Co. Solicitors)

Claimant

David Frederick Wilson

Defendant

Julian Nigel Richard Pitts

Defendant

LawFinance Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Loan Agreement valid and enforceable?
  2. 2 Was the Loan Agreement a bill of sale under the Bills of Sale Acts?
  3. 3 Are solicitors’ files 'personal chattels' and who owns them?

Ratio Decidendi

The Loan Agreement was valid and enforceable as a contract and not a bill of sale; the Assignments, though registered, failed to comply with the form requirements of the Bills of Sale Act 1882 and were void as security over personal chattels (files), but remained effective as assignments of the income stream (choses in action). Mr Chapman consented to the removal of files, negating any claim for conversion or unlawful interference. LawFinance was entitled to the sums due under the Loan Agreement and to the income from the scheduled cases.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; counterclaim substantially allowed.

Orders

  • Mr Chapman's claim for damages under the Torts (Unlawful Interference with Goods) Act 1977 is dismissed.
  • Declaration that LawFinance is entitled, by way of security, to any sum payable to Mr Chapman or CCC in respect of fees or disbursements for any personal injury case conducted by Mr Chapman or CCC.