Lewis v The West Brom [2023] EWHC 1361 (KB) (07 June 2023)

Lewis v The West Brom [2023] EWHC 1361 (KB) (07 June 2023)

All claims were struck out as they disclosed no reasonable grounds, were incoherent, and constituted an abuse of process by seeking to undermine or delay County Court possession proceedings. The claims were found to be a collateral attack on concluded judgments and an improper use of the High Court's process.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1361 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Gloria Lewis; Defendant: The West Brom; Claimant: Jennifer Spellen; Defendant: Santander; Claimant: Nicole Lawerence; Defendant: Lendinvest BTL Ltd; Claimant: Dawn Antoine; Defendant: Oakwood Homeloans Ltd; Claimant: Charmaine Jorsling; Defendant: Accord Mortgages Ltd; Claimant: Ewan Percival
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 June 2023
Procedural Posture
Part 8 Claim (multiple Cases Consolidated for Hearing) / Strike Out Applications and Court's Own Motion to Strike Out
Outcome
All claims struck out as abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable grounds.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack on Judgment, Mortgage Possession Proceedings, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Abuse of Process Collateral Attack on Judgment Mortgage Possession Proceedings Strike Out Applications Costs Orders

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gloria Lewis

Claimant

The West Brom

Defendant

Jennifer Spellen

Claimant

Santander

Defendant

Nicole Lawerence

Claimant

Lendinvest BTL Ltd

Defendant

Dawn Antoine

Claimant

Oakwood Homeloans Ltd

Defendant

Charmaine Jorsling

Claimant

Accord Mortgages Ltd

Defendant

Ewan Percival

Claimant

Procedural Posture

Part 8 Claim (multiple Cases Consolidated for Hearing) / Strike Out Applications and Court's Own Motion to Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 claims disclose any reasonable grounds for bringing a claim
  2. 2 Whether the claims constitute an abuse of process or collateral attack on County Court possession orders
  3. 3 Whether the claims should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b)

Ratio Decidendi

All claims were struck out as they disclosed no reasonable grounds, were incoherent, and constituted an abuse of process by seeking to undermine or delay County Court possession proceedings. The claims were found to be a collateral attack on concluded judgments and an improper use of the High Court's process.

Court Disposition

All claims struck out as abuse of process and for disclosing no reasonable grounds.

Orders

  • Each claim is struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b).
  • Claimants to pay defendants' costs, to be added to mortgage debts as per loan terms.