Kells -v- Cashback Limited [2012] JCA 140 (23 July 2012)

Under Jersey law, assignment of debt does not require debtor's consent or notice from assignor; provision of the Instrument of Assignment sufficed. No defence was available to appellant, and no breach of data protection law was established.

Citation: [2012] JCA 140
Parties: Appellant/plaintiff: Edward Thomas Kells; Respondent/defendant: Cashback Limited
Jurisdiction: Jersey
Judgment Date: 23 July 2012
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Assignment of Debt, Notice Requirements, Consent to Assignment, Data Protection, Pending List Procedure

Contract Law Debt Recovery Assignment of Debt Notice Requirements Consent to Assignment Data Protection Pending List Procedure

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Edward Thomas Kells

Appellant/plaintiff

Cashback Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether notice and consent are required for assignment of debt under Jersey law
2 Whether the appellant has a defence to the claim based on lack of notice or consent
3 Whether data protection violations extinguish the debt

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Appellant condemned to pay respondent the amount claimed (£21,932.23) plus interest from 4 March 2011 to repayment in full, fixed costs of the action, and interest on costs.
Respondent authorised to distrain and sell appellant's movables and arrest wages up to £80 per week.