The Society of Lloyd's v Elizabeth Mary Levy & Ors [2004] EWHC 1860 (Comm) (30 July 2004)

The Society of Lloyd's v Elizabeth Mary Levy & Ors [2004] EWHC 1860 (Comm) (30 July 2004)

The proposed amendments to the defence are unarguable as a matter of law: the EU Directive does not confer direct rights on the defendants; the assignment was valid and properly stamped; registration is irrelevant absent insolvency; and there is no evidence of manifest error in the quantum. Summary judgment is granted to Lloyd's.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 1860 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: The Society of Lloyd's; Defendant: Elizabeth Mary Levy; Defendant: Mark Ian Levy; Defendant: Jeffrey Harcourt Johnson; Defendant: Susan Rachel Johnson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim for Debt and Counterclaim / Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Pleadings
Outcome
Summary judgment for the claimant; permission to amend refused; counterclaims dismissed.
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Stamp Duty on Assignments, Registration of Charges, Direct Effect of EU Directives, Summary Judgment, Abuse of Process, Quantum of Debt, Disclosure Obligations
Commercial Law Insurance Law European Union Law Bankruptcy Law Assignment of Debt Stamp Duty on Assignments Registration of Charges Direct Effect of EU Directives +4 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Society of Lloyd's

Claimant

Elizabeth Mary Levy

Defendant

Mark Ian Levy

Defendant

Jeffrey Harcourt Johnson

Defendant

Susan Rachel Johnson

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim for Debt and Counterclaim / Application for Summary Judgment and Permission to Amend Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants can amend their pleadings to raise new defences including EU Directive compliance, stamp duty, registration, and quantum
  2. 2 Whether Lloyd's is entitled to summary judgment for the debt claims
  3. 3 Whether the European Directive 73/239 confers directly enforceable rights on the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments to the defence are unarguable as a matter of law: the EU Directive does not confer direct rights on the defendants; the assignment was valid and properly stamped; registration is irrelevant absent insolvency; and there is no evidence of manifest error in the quantum. Summary judgment is granted to Lloyd's.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the claimant; permission to amend refused; counterclaims dismissed.

Orders

  • Judgment for Lloyd's on the debt claims against all defendants
  • Permission to amend defences refused