⚖️ my Trial outcome, & Frischmann "ratio decidendi" vs "obiter dictum"

27d (edited) • GDPR for Credit Card Loans etc

I’ve just come out of trial with LC Asset 2 S.à.r.l. (using Link/Kearns) at Ipswich County Court (01/09/2025).

The judge excluded my bundle as “very late,” even though it was filed three clear days before trial as per court directions, saying it was 1 day late, but not before 14 days evidence disclure.

The claimant also filed late and the judge hadn’t even seen their 170 pages of exhibits, but they were still allowed to email them directly to the judge during the live trial.

I produced a Debt Satisfied Letter in court — a decisive document from the claimant’s own agent — but the judge refused to look at it.

My other defences (no executed credit agreement, defects in the deed, FCA/FSMA authorisation) were not addressed.

🔑 The Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA Case

I relied on Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA [2023] EWHC 2698 (Ch). This case is a modern authority on proving legal assignment.

Here’s why it matters:

In law, the ratio decidendi (“the reason for deciding”) is the binding holding of a case. I cited Paragraph 1, 64, 66.

By contrast, an obiter dictum (“a remark said in passing”) is a side comment: it can be persuasive, but it isn’t binding. DCA cited Paragraph 17

In Frischmann, the holding (ratio decidendi) was clear:

The deed itself must be proven in evidence;

The deed must clearly identify the specific debt;

A notice of assignment alone is not sufficient to prove legal title.

The claimant’s solicitor, however, quoted a side passage (an obiter dictum) suggesting that notice could be enough, and the judge accepted this without checking the case herself (she even misnamed it as “Fishman”).

That means the judge adopted dicta, not the binding holding, and therefore misapplied the law.

---

🚩 Why I’m Appealing

The judge decided the claim in favour of the claimant on the “balance of probabilities,” but ignored:

The Debt Satisfied Letter;

The absence of an executed credit agreement;

The deed’s failure to identify my debt;

FCA authorisation issues.

On any fair weighing, the balance should have tipped the other way. i told the judge I think excluding my evidence was unfair, and the Frischmann case law had not been correctly applied, and said I wanted to Apoeal. The judge said she did not grant permission to appeal.

I therefor need to apply to the Appeals court. I have now filed:

N164 Appellant’s Notice with 10 Grounds of Appeal, including unequal treatment under Denton, misapplication of Frischmann, defects in the deed, lack of FCA/FSMA authorisation, and the flawed interest award;

N244 Application for Stay of Enforcement so enforcement is paused until the appeal is heard.

I’m asking a Circuit Judge to either dismiss the claim outright for lack of standing, or order a retrial before a different District judge with all evidence admitted.

66 comments