Lees v Lloyds Bank Plc [2020] EWHC 2249 (Ch) (24 August 2020)

Lees v Lloyds Bank Plc [2020] EWHC 2249 (Ch) (24 August 2020)

Lloyds Bank PLC, as the registered proprietor of the legal charges, has standing to pursue possession regardless of any alleged securitisation. The claimant failed to provide evidence of assignment. The responses to DSARs were adequate, and the claim is a collateral attack on final County Court orders, constituting an abuse of process. No relief is warranted.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2249 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Silas Jonathan Lees; Defendant: Lloyds Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 August 2020
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim / Disposal Hearing and Application to Strike Out Under CPR 3.4(2)(a) And/or Summary Judgment Under CPR 24.2
Outcome
Claim dismissed as totally without merit.
Legal Topics
Securitisation, Possession Proceedings, Data Subject Access Requests, Disclosure, Collateral Attack, Jurisdiction, Abuse of Process
Property Law Banking Law Data Protection Securitisation Possession Proceedings Data Subject Access Requests Disclosure Collateral Attack +2 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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Silas Jonathan Lees

Claimant

Lloyds Bank PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim / Disposal Hearing and Application to Strike Out Under CPR 3.4(2)(a) And/or Summary Judgment Under CPR 24.2

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Lloyds Bank PLC assigned its interest in the mortgages and thus lacked standing to pursue possession proceedings
  2. 2 Whether Lloyds Bank PLC failed to comply with Data Subject Access Requests under the Data Protection Act 1998/2018 and GDPR
  3. 3 Whether the High Court should grant disclosure or other relief sought by the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

Lloyds Bank PLC, as the registered proprietor of the legal charges, has standing to pursue possession regardless of any alleged securitisation. The claimant failed to provide evidence of assignment. The responses to DSARs were adequate, and the claim is a collateral attack on final County Court orders, constituting an abuse of process. No relief is warranted.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed as totally without merit.

Orders

  • Each party to file and serve written submissions within 14 days regarding consequential orders, including costs and permission to appeal.
  • Counter-submissions to be filed within a further 7 days.