Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra

Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Samra

The assignment of the debt from the Bank to the claimant was effective and enforceable. There was no common intention or assurance of a 15-year facility; all relevant agreements were for shorter terms, and Mr Samra was aware of and agreed to those terms. The relationship was not unfair under s.140A CCA 1974, as the terms were negotiated, the defendant was commercially aware, and there was no improper conduct or pressure. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sums claimed (less agreed waiver of default interest) and possession of the secured properties.

Parties
Claimant: Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd; Defendant: Gurcharn Samra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 September 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial/property) / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the claimant
Legal Topics
Assignment of Debt, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Possession Proceedings, Facility Agreements, Interest Rate Hedging, Mis Selling of Financial Products
Banking Law Contract Law Consumer Credit Assignment of Debt Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Possession Proceedings 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd

Claimant

Gurcharn Samra

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial/property) / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the assignment of debt from Clydesdale Bank to Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd was effective and enforceable
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between the Bank (and its assignee) and Mr Samra was 'unfair' within the meaning of s.140A Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the claimant is entitled to judgment for the sums claimed and possession of the secured properties

Ratio Decidendi

The assignment of the debt from the Bank to the claimant was effective and enforceable. There was no common intention or assurance of a 15-year facility; all relevant agreements were for shorter terms, and Mr Samra was aware of and agreed to those terms. The relationship was not unfair under s.140A CCA 1974, as the terms were negotiated, the defendant was commercially aware, and there was no improper conduct or pressure. The claimant is entitled to judgment for the sums claimed (less agreed waiver of default interest) and possession of the secured properties.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the claimant

Orders

  • Money judgment for the amount claimed less approximately £53,000 default interest
  • Order for possession of the two charged properties