He who Asserts, must Prove! & s.136 of the Law of Property Act 1925

7d (edited) • GDPR for Credit Card Loans etc

📝 “Your Honour, the Claimant has not produced an absolute legal assignment within section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

At best, what they have shown is an equitable arrangement. In law, that does not give them standing to sue in their own name (Van Lynn Developments v Pelias Construction [1969] 1 QB 607).

"This is not a matter for ‘balance of probabilities.’ It is a statutory requirement. Unless they produce a valid absolute deed, the claim must fail.”

⚖️ The Law

“He who asserts must prove” → If the claimant says they own the debt, the burden is on them to prove it.
s.136 Law of Property Act 1925 → An absolute legal assignment must be: In writing, signed by the assignor; Notified to the debtor.
Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWCA Civ 1674 → If the debtor squarely disputes title, the claimant must show the actual deed of assignment.
Van Lynn Developments v Pelias [1969] 1 QB 607 → Without an absolute assignment, the claim cannot be brought in the assignee’s own name.

So: No absolute deed = no standing to sue.

⚖️ Where Judges Slip Into “Balance of Probabilities”

Civil courts always use the balance of probabilities standard (more likely than not).
If a claimant shows a Notice of Assignment + some correspondence or payment records, judges often accept that as “enough proof” they own the debt.
Unless the LiP pins the judge back to the legal requirement of s.136, courts sometimes treat it as an evidential issue rather than a statutory bar.

🚨 Can a Judge Decide “Balance of Probabilities” Without an Absolute Deed?

This question comes up all the time in debt buyer cases, so let’s set it out clearly for everyone here

⚠️ Why That’s a Problem

If the deed produced is shown to be non-absolute (forward flow, buy-back clauses, missing schedules, etc.), then it is at best an equitable assignment.
An equitable assignee cannot sue in its own name.
If a judge rules “on balance of probabilities they own it” despite the deed being defective, that is not just a weighing of evidence — it is an error of law.
That makes the judgment unsafe and appealable.

✅ Takeaway

Don’t let the issue slide into “credibility” or “probabilities.”
Keep the judge focused: assignment is a matter of law, not belief.
If no absolute deed exists, the claim should be barred. If the judge still rules otherwise, that may give strong appeal grounds.

🔗 Share this with anyone in the group prepping for an unsecured debt type hearing.

💬 Has anyone here actually had a judge accept “balance of probabilities” in the absence of a deed?

What happened?

10 comments