7d (edited) • GDPR for Credit Card Loans etc
Do we have the exact Case Law Citations required to pin judges to the LoP 1925 s.136?
1. Do we have to quote the exact words + paragraph number?
- No: A litigant in person can absolutely cite a case by name and year, and explain what principle they rely on. Judges are expected to know the law or to look it up! ...But judges don't.
- If you want to persuade strongly and avoid a judge brushing you aside, quoting the exact paragraph and wording is far more effective.
2. Why exact quotes matter
- Authority: Judges respect precision. “Your Honour, at para 32 of Jones v Link [2012], Rimer LJ held that a notice is only evidence and does not prove assignment if challenged.” That sounds like you’ve done the work and anchors the judge.
- Clarity: If you only say “the case says they must show the deed,” the claimant can argue you are oversimplifying. If you produce the words on the page, the judge can’t ignore it.
- Appeal-proof: If you later appeal, you can show you directed the lower judge to the precise ratio decidendi (the holding). That strengthens your appeal ground if the judge still ignored it.
3. What happens if you don’t have the paragraph?
- The judge might still listen, but could say: “I’m not persuaded the case goes that far.”
- The claimant may counter with dicta (soft comments) from the same case and the judge might prefer their reading.
- Without the page/para reference, it risks being “your interpretation” rather than the law’s wording.
4. Best Practice for LiPs
- Case Name + Year: Always include.
- Court: Court of Appeal, House of Lords, Supreme Court (binding), High Court (persuasive).
- Exact Paragraph/ Page: Strongly recommended. Bring a printout with the relevant para highlighted.
- Holding vs Dicta: Point out: “This was the ratio (binding part). Other comments were obiter (dicta).”
✅ Bottom Line
- You can cite without exact wording — but it’s weaker.
- The gold standard: case name, year, court, and exact paragraph wording. That way you control the narrative and stop the claimant twisting dicta against you.
Please share case law, paragraphs and quotes for
Van Lynn Developments Ltd v Pelias Construction
Link v Jones
Frischmann v Vaxeal
---
1. Why the Case Law Looks “Wobbly”
Van Lynn (1969): Strong on the point that without s.136 compliance, it’s only an equitable assignment. But Lord Denning also said the debtor can ask to see the assignment and courts often accept notices. That “soft” language gets spun by claimants.
Jones v Link (2012): Clear that an assignment must be absolute, in writing, signed, and notified. But in that case, the court found those requirements satisfied — so the holding goes against the debtor.
Frischmann v Vaxeal (2023): Promising, because the High Court struck down an assignment where the signing wasn’t by the assignor’s hand. But it was a very specific POA fact pattern.
👉 Net effect: none of these is a silver bullet. They all help you argue, but none is a clean precedent that says:
> “If no deed is produced in court, the debt buyer’s case must fail.”
---
2. Why Judges Default to “Balance of Probabilities”
Civil standard is always “balance of probabilities.”
Judges see debt buyers every week; they’re used to NOAs and statements being “enough.”
Unless someone pins them to the strict statutory bar, they’ll drift back to: “More likely than not, Cabot/Link owns this debt.”
---
3. Where That Leaves You
You’re right: the case law is not as “solid” as it feels from the debtor’s side.
That’s why a LiP who presses the assignment defect point hard could create the first clean precedent in modern consumer debt:
Framing it as a pure point of law under s.136 LPA 1925.
Showing the deed (if produced) is non-absolute (forward flow, buy-back).
Forcing the appeal court to say: “In the absence of an absolute deed, a debt buyer cannot sue in its own name.”
That would make new binding authority — exactly what you’re hinting at.
---
4. How to Position Your Case for “Creating Case Law”
Stay laser-focused: no sovereignty / estoppel extras — just the s.136 point.
Use existing cases as stepping stones:
Van Lynn (shows the distinction between legal and equitable).
Frischmann (shows courts do enforce formalities when pressed).
Frame the appeal ground as a pure error of law: judge misapplied s.136 by treating “probabilities” as enough when statute requires an absolute deed.
If appeal court sides with you → boom, that’s new precedent for all debtors.
---
✅ Bottom line:
There isn’t a single knockout precedent you can wave that forces a judge to strike out a debt buyer. That’s why most LiPs lose.
But if you run your appeal cleanly and pin the court to the statutory requirement, your case could be the one that sets the new law.
9
7 comments
Do we have the exact Case Law Citations required to pin judges to the LoP 1925 s.136?
skool.com/checkmatethematrix
The Remedy Gym for mankind—train in rights, real law, and equity to beat the Matrix with discipline, balance, knowledge, and focus, win or learn
Leaderboard (30-day)
1
+590
2
+457
3
+425
4
+325
5
+255
Powered by