Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra [2019] EWHC 2327 (Ch) (03 September 2019)

Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra [2019] EWHC 2327 (Ch) (03 September 2019)

The claimant is the lawful assignee of the Bank's rights and entitled to enforce the debt and security. The assignment was effective in law. The relationship between Mr Samra and the Bank was not unfair under s140A CCA; there was no binding promise of a 15-year term, and Mr Samra understood and agreed to the terms, including the hedging product. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sums claimed and possession of the secured properties.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2327 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd; Defendant: Gurcharn Samra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Money Claim and Possession Proceedings / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim allowed
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974, Possession of Secured Property, Facility Agreements, Interest Rate Hedging, Burden of Proof Under S140 a CCA
Banking and Finance Law Property Law Consumer Credit Assignment of Debt Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 Possession of Secured Property Facility Agreements Interest Rate Hedging +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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd

Claimant

Gurcharn Samra

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Money Claim and Possession Proceedings / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant is the lawful assignee of the debt and entitled to sue
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the Bank and Mr Samra was unfair under s140A Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its powers under s140B CCA to reduce liability or alter terms

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant is the lawful assignee of the Bank's rights and entitled to enforce the debt and security. The assignment was effective in law. The relationship between Mr Samra and the Bank was not unfair under s140A CCA; there was no binding promise of a 15-year term, and Mr Samra understood and agreed to the terms, including the hedging product. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sums claimed and possession of the secured properties.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed

Orders

  • Money judgment for approximately £640,000 in favour of the claimant
  • Order for possession of Jesson House and Torrington Avenue, Coventry, in favour of the claimant