Haydock Finance Ltd v Starcruiser Bussing Ltd & Anor

The claimant sought delivery up of a leased bus and sums due under a lease and guarantor agreement. The defendant relied on a securitisation/chain of title analysis and argued the matter should be transferred to the Chancery Division and that disclosure was required. The court held the claim was properly issued in the Circuit Commercial Court and refused transfer. The judge explained caution is required when deciding substantive issues at a fixed date hearing but where the material discloses no real prospect of a defence the court may determine the issue on a summary basis. Having reviewed the defendants' securitisation report and other material, the court concluded there was no arguable basis that securitisation or any assignment had deprived the claimant of the right to recover the vehicle and ordered delivery up. The court declined to give judgment on the money claim at the fixed date hearing because that procedure was not appropriate without consent, and invited submissions on next steps.

The claimant, Haydock Finance Limited, issued proceedings seeking delivery up of a bus leased to the first defendant and money owed under the lease and a guarantor agreement dated 26 October 2018. The defendants asserted defences based on an asserted securitisation structure, alleged trust interests, argued the matter be transferred to the Chancery Division and sought disclosure. The second defendant appeared in person and relied on an exhibit described as a "Securitisation Analysis Report".

The court first considered the application to transfer. Applying CPR 59.1(2)(a) and related guidance, the judge concluded the action fell within the Circuit Commercial Court's remit, that any trust issues could properly be determined there and that transfer to the Chancery Division was unnecessary.

The judge then addressed procedure at a fixed date hearing and emphasised caution before deciding substantive issues summarily in a Part 7 claim where a summary judgment application had not been made. The court explained that summary determination was appropriate where the material before the court discloses no real prospect of a successful defence, bearing in mind material likely to be available at trial and protection for litigants in person. The judge accepted that the defendants had notice of the hearing and had filed evidence opposing recovery, so it was appropriate to consider whether there was any real prospect of defence to the delivery up application.

The court analysed the defendants' Report and the alleged chain of title. The judge found defects in the form and legal analysis of the Report, and that the Report did not demonstrate any separation of agreement from trust which would prevent enforcement by the claimant. The defendants had not shown they were beneficiaries of any trust in circumstances that would defeat the claimant's rights. The court considered the possibility of assignment and noted that even an equitable assignment would ordinarily leave the assignor with a right to sue in the absence of notice to the debtor (citing Three Rivers DC v Governor of the Bank of England [1996] QB 292). The judge also noted the second defendant's data protection complaints and explained that the court was not the appropriate first forum for a wide-ranging data protection compliance order under section 167 of the Data Protection Act 2018 (citing R (ex p Lord) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2003] EWHC 2073 for the discretionary nature of such relief).

Ultimately, the court concluded there was no realistic prospect of successfully defending the delivery up application and ordered delivery up of the vehicle. The judge declined to give judgment on the money claim at the fixed date hearing without the defendants' consent, due to potential unfairness and procedural inappropriateness, and invited submissions on whether the claimant would pursue the remainder of the claim or seek summary judgment or trial allocation, including consideration of the Shorter and Flexible Trials Schemes (PD 57AB).

At first instance, the court ordered delivery up of the vehicle and refused the defendants' application to transfer to the Chancery Division. The court refused to decide the monetary claims at the fixed date hearing without consent, concluding the defendants had no real prospect of successfully defending the delivery up claim because the securitisation/chain of title material did not show that the claimant had lost the right to enforce the lease; assignment arguments were unsubstantiated and there was no notice to the defendants that would defeat the claimant's right to sue.