Validity of notice of assignment stating unverifiable assignment date challenged

The High Court recently determined the question of whether a notice of assignment of a debt was valid where it stated an unverifiable date of assignment.

In the case of Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch) (13 September 2019), the Co-operative Bank had assigned a debt to Promontoria. Both parties gave a joint notice of assignment to the debtor that his debt had been assigned "on and with effect from 29 July 2016". With the debt being assigned, Promontoria served a statutory demand on the debtor for outstanding sums owed by the debtor.

In response, the debtor attempted to have the statutory demand set aside on the basis that a notice of assignment which stated the wrong date of assignment was invalid and would have no effect. Moreover, where the date of assignment was unverifiable, there was scope for the notice of assignment to be invalid as the date of assignment could be wrong.

The High Court held that the joint notice from the Co-operative Bank and Promontoria clearly showed that both parties agreed and accepted that the assignment had taken place and was valid, although it was accepted by the Court that the documentation produced by Promontoria to the debtor after the notice of assignment was served was inadequate to verify the date on which assignment had taken place. This new High Court decision indicates that mistakes within a notice of assignment as to the date of assignment may not be fatal, especially where it’s clear that the debt has been assigned.

You can contact Torion Bowles to discuss this case further by calling 023 8071 7455 or email torionbowles@warnergoodman.co.uk. 

This article has been published as part of the latest issue of our Commercial Brief, detailed within the In Brief section. You can view the other In Brief articles below:

• Scope of personal data erasure right not applicable worldwide
• Your rival's products: be careful what you say - summary judgment for claims in defamation and malicious falsehood
• Double glazing company fined £150,000 for breach of Privacy Electronic Communications Regulations
• What does failure to attend trial actually mean?

ENDS

This is for information purposes only and is no substitute for, and should not be interpreted as, legal advice. All content was correct at the time of publishing and we cannot be held responsible for any changes that may invalidate this article.