Factual and Procedural Background
This Part 8 claim was heard on 17 July 2020 for a disposal hearing combined with the defendant's application to strike out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and/or for judgment under CPR 24.2. The Plaintiff appeared in person, and the Defendant was represented by counsel.
The Plaintiff had previously pursued a similar claim against Company B which was dismissed as totally without merit, with all appeals refused. The present claim concerns three buy-to-let mortgage properties for which the Defendant holds registered legal charges.
The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant assigned the benefit of the legal charges as part of a securitisation process, thus lacking standing to pursue possession claims. The Defendant is registered as proprietor of the legal charges, and possession orders have been made against the Plaintiff in the County Court, with all appeals exhausted.
Three interrelated matters have proceeded since 2017: a series of Data Subject Access Requests (DSARs) made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant; possession claims pursued by the Defendant; and this claim itself.
The Plaintiff made multiple DSARs seeking information about loan applications, loan sales, service agreements, and fiduciary capacities. The Defendant responded after some delay, denying loan sales and providing some information.
In early 2019, the Defendant issued possession claims in the County Court. The Plaintiff defended on grounds including alleged assignment of loans to a third party and fraud by the Defendant, and sought disclosure of assignments. Possession orders were granted, the Plaintiff’s defences struck out, and costs awarded to the Defendant. Subsequent applications by the Plaintiff to stay execution or set aside orders were dismissed as totally without merit.
The current claim was issued in August 2019 but served only in February 2020, with initial procedural defects waived by the Defendant who invited the court to consider the claim on its merits. The claim seeks disclosure under CPR rules, relief under the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR, and information under sections 136 and 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
The Plaintiff contends the claim should be heard by a High Court Judge due to its complexity and subject matter; however, the court found no jurisdictional impediment to the claim being dealt with by a Master.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Defendant has standing to bring possession proceedings given the Plaintiff’s allegations of assignment and securitisation of the mortgages.
- Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to disclosure of documents relating to the alleged assignment or securitisation under CPR rules and the Law of Property Act 1925.
- Whether the Defendant has breached the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR by failing to provide requested data in response to DSARs.
- Whether the claim constitutes an abuse of process by seeking to challenge possession orders already determined in the County Court.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The Defendant has assigned the benefit of the legal charges as part of securitisation, thus lacking standing to pursue possession claims.
- The Defendant has failed to comply with DSARs under the Data Protection Act 2018 and GDPR.
- The Plaintiff seeks disclosure of documents under CPR 31.12, 31.14, 31.16, and sections 136 and 196 of the Law of Property Act 1925.
- The Plaintiff asserts the claim should be heard by a High Court Judge due to its complexity and subject matter.
- The Plaintiff relies on an expert report suggesting potential securitisation of the loans.
Appellee's Arguments
- The Defendant is the registered proprietor of the legal charges and has not transferred or assigned any interest in the mortgages.
- The Defendant provided adequate responses to DSARs, denying any loan sales or assignments.
- The Plaintiff’s claim for disclosure under CPR is procedurally flawed and substantively without merit.
- The Plaintiff’s challenge to possession orders is an abuse of process as those orders have been finally determined with no outstanding appeals.
- The expert report relied upon by the Plaintiff lacks substance and credibility.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Paragon Finance plc v Pender [2005] 1 WLR 3412 |
Only the registered proprietor of a legal estate has standing to bring possession proceedings. |
The Court held this precedent created an insuperable obstacle for the Plaintiff’s claim that the Defendant lacked standing, confirming the Defendant’s entitlement to bring possession claims. |
| Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel [2020] EWHC 563 (Ch) |
Failure to produce primary documentary evidence without explanation may justify adverse inference. |
The Court found this precedent inapplicable as the Plaintiff failed to show any assignment or transfer of interest, and the evidential context differed significantly. |
| Ittihadieh v 5 11 Cheyne Gardens RTM Co Ltd [2018] QB 256 (CA) |
Interpretation and application of DSARs under the Data Protection Act 1998, including proportionality and court discretion. |
The Court applied principles from this case to assess the adequacy of the Defendant’s DSAR responses and exercise its discretion, concluding refusal to order further disclosure was appropriate. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court first addressed the procedural and substantive basis for the Plaintiff’s claims for disclosure under CPR rules and the Law of Property Act 1925, concluding there was no basis to grant relief as the rules cited did not apply to freestanding claims or had been superseded. The Plaintiff failed to satisfy any requirements for specific disclosure under CPR 31.16.
Regarding the core issue of standing, the court relied heavily on the precedent in Paragon Finance plc v Pender, emphasizing that the registered proprietor of the legal estate—here, the Defendant—has exclusive standing to bring possession claims. The Plaintiff had not demonstrated on the balance of probabilities that an assignment or transfer of interest had occurred.
The Plaintiff’s belief in securitisation was unsupported by credible evidence. The expert report relied upon was found to lack substance and credibility, and the Defendant’s evidence confirmed no assignment or transfer had taken place.
The court found the Plaintiff’s attempt to re-litigate possession orders already determined in the County Court constituted an abuse of process. The Plaintiff had exhausted all appeals and avenues in the County Court and was improperly seeking to challenge those orders collaterally.
On the Data Protection claims, the court noted the DSARs were made when the Data Protection Act 1998 was in force. The Defendant had provided adequate responses to each DSAR. The court applied the principles from Ittihadieh, considering the proportionality of the Plaintiff’s numerous and repetitive DSARs, the collateral litigation purpose behind them, and the lack of benefit to the Plaintiff. The court exercised its discretion against ordering further disclosure.
The court rejected the Plaintiff’s request for a High Court Judge to hear the claim, finding no jurisdictional impediment to a Master dealing with it.
Holding and Implications
The claim is dismissed as totally without merit.
The court’s decision confirms that the Defendant, as registered proprietor of the legal charges, has standing to bring possession proceedings and that the Plaintiff cannot challenge possession orders already finally determined in the County Court through collateral litigation. The Plaintiff’s claims for disclosure under CPR and the Law of Property Act 1925 fail on procedural and substantive grounds. The Data Protection claims are dismissed, with the court exercising discretion against ordering further disclosure given the circumstances.
No new precedent is established. The direct effect is the final dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim. The court ordered the parties to file written submissions on consequential orders, including costs and any application for permission to appeal.