Gloria Lewis v "The West Brom"

Gloria Lewis v "The West Brom"

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 through collateral attacks on concluded judgments. The claims were found to be legally erroneous, without merit, and an improper use of the High Court's process.

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
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Mortgage/property Possession / Judgment on Strike Out Applications and Abuse of Process
Outcome
All claims struck out as abuses of process and for disclosing no reasonable grounds.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack on Judgments, Mortgage Possession, Strike Out Applications, Costs
Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Abuse of Process Collateral Attack on Judgments Mortgage Possession Strike Out Applications Costs

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 6
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

Civil Mortgage/property Possession / Judgment on Strike Out Applications and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 claims disclosed any reasonable grounds for bringing the claims
  2. 2 Whether the claims constituted an abuse of process by seeking to undermine or delay County Court possession proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the claims were collateral attacks on concluded County Court decisions

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 through collateral attacks on concluded judgments. The claims were found to be legally erroneous, without merit, and an improper use of the High Court's process.

Court Disposition

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

Orders

  • All listed claims are struck out.
  • Claimants to pay the defendants' costs, to be added to their mortgage or loan liabilities as appropriate.