Strike Out a Claim Using Frischmann case - Litigation Tip – Why We Use “Assignment Instrument” (Not Just 'Deed')

In the attached witness statement, (being used in a live case today) you'll notice the term “assignment instrument” used instead of “Deed of Assignment.” This is deliberate — and powerful.

Too often, arguments spiral into whether a deed is technically required under s.136 LOPA 1925. But Frischmann [2023] EWHC 2698 (Ch) settled the real issue: if the claimant is asserting legal title, they must prove it with a valid instrument of assignment — signed by the assignor, absolute, and admissible in court.

By using the term “instrument,” we close every escape route:

✅ If it was a deed — then where is the executed, unredacted copy?

✅ If it’s an absolute assignment in writing — then it still needs to comply with s.136.

✅ If it’s neither — the claim collapses for lack of title.

This language shifts the burden back where it belongs — on the DCA — and prevents us getting bogged down in irrelevant side debates.

Let’s keep our focus: litigation, not pedantry.Frischmann is the precedent. The burden is on the claimant. We demand evidence.

35 comments