Law of Property Act 1925 s.136 · Checkmate The Matrix

Kev Baker

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

Law of Property Act 1925 s.136

📑 Argument Frame – Law, Not Technicality

1. Statutory Requirement

Section 136 Law of Property Act 1925 sets a clear test: Assignment must be absolute; In writing and signed by the assignor; Notice must be given to the debtor.
Parliament chose these words. The court’s task is to apply them, not water them down.

2. Not a Mere Technicality

This is not about avoiding liability on a “technical dodge.”
It is about ensuring that only a claimant with legal standing can bring proceedings in its own name.
Standing goes to the root of jurisdiction: without it, the court has no power to enter judgment for the claimant.

3. Protecting Debtors and Creditors

The requirement for an absolute deed protects both sides: Debtors: from paying the wrong entity or twice. Creditors: from challenges to title and commercial uncertainty.
Ignoring the statute undermines the integrity of the system for everyone.

4. Case Law Support

Van Lynn Developments v Pelias [1969] 1 QB 607: confirms the distinction between legal and equitable assignments; without an absolute deed, the assignee cannot sue in its own name.
Frischmann v Vaxeal [2023] EWHC 2698: High Court enforced the strict wording of s.136, holding that a failure to satisfy formalities made the assignment only equitable.
Jones v Link Financial [2012] EWHC 2402: sets out the three conditions expressly.

5. Error Below

The judge treated the issue as one of “balance of probabilities.”
That misapplies the law: s.136 is a statutory bar, not an evidential presumption.
No absolute deed = no standing. The claim should have been dismissed.

6. Relief Sought

Appeal allowed.
Judgment for the claimant set aside for want of standing.
Alternatively, matter remitted with directions requiring production of the absolute deed.

⚖️ Closing line (courtroom ready):

“Your Honour, this is not about evading a debt. It is about enforcing Parliament’s requirement that a claimant must prove an absolute legal assignment before suing in its own name. Without such proof, the court has no jurisdiction to give judgment for the claimant.”

10 comments