Haydock Finance Ltd v Starcruiser Bussing Ltd & Anor

A court hearing a claim for delivery up at a fixed-date hearing may determine the issue summarily where the evidence discloses no realistic defence or reasonable line of enquiry. It must remain cautious, particularly where a litigant in person is involved, and should ensure that the requirements applicable to summary judgment are met without conducting a mini-trial.

Issues concerning securitisation, trusts or assignment do not prevent recovery of goods without evidence showing that the claimant has lost its right to sue. An equitable assignment does not generally prevent the assignor suing on the agreement. A money judgment should not ordinarily be entered at a fixed-date hearing without the defendant’s consent unless the appropriate summary judgment procedure has been followed.

The claimant sought delivery up of a bus leased to the first defendant, together with sums allegedly due under the lease and a guarantee given by the second defendant. The defendants sought transfer to the Chancery Division and relied on alleged securitisation, trust, assignment, disclosure and data-protection issues.

The court refused transfer, holding that the claim was a commercial matter suitable for the Circuit Commercial Court. It then considered whether the delivery-up issue could be determined summarily at the fixed-date hearing and whether the defendants had any realistic defence.

1. Transfer. The claim concerned a commercial or business matter in the broad sense and was properly issued in the Circuit Commercial Court. Trust issues could be adjudicated there under the same law applicable in the Chancery Division. Transfer was therefore unnecessary.
2. Summary determination at a fixed-date hearing. The court should be cautious where no summary judgment application has been made, because the defendant may lack the procedural protection provided by CPR 24 and the associated Practice Direction. However, where the material discloses no defence, the court may proceed summarily, provided the requirements reflected in CPR 24.2.3 are met and no mini-trial is required. Particular care is required where the defendant is a litigant in person.
3. Delivery up. The securitisation material did not establish that the lease agreement had been separated from any trust arrangement, that the defendants were beneficiaries, or that the claimant had lost its right to sue. The defendants showed no arguable defence or reasonable line of enquiry justifying delay. An order for delivery up should therefore be made.
4. Assignment. Even if an assignment had occurred, the absence of notice meant that it could only have been equitable. Applying Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England [1996] QB 292, the assignor retained the right to sue on the agreement.
5. Money claim. The court declined to enter judgment for the sums claimed at the fixed-date hearing without the defendants’ consent. The claimant could decide whether to pursue the money claim and, if so, seek summary judgment by the proper procedure.