Iain Clifford Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Limited T/A CHL Mortgages & Ors

This judgment determines applications in three representative claims (from a group of over two hundred) challenging mortgage assignments and securitisations. The court struck out all three claims under CPR 3.4(2) on the grounds that they disclosed no reasonable grounds and were an abuse of process. The court applied principles from the Land Registration regime: an assignment of a beneficial interest does not transfer legal title and is not a registrable disposition (see section 27 Land Registration Act 2002), and the register is conclusive as to the registered proprietor (section 58 Land Registration Act 2002). The court relied on authority that the registered proprietor retains the legal rights of a mortgagee and that borrowers cannot claim termination of the contract or damages simply because a beneficial interest has been assigned (see Paragon Finance plc v Pender).

Procedurally, the claims were defective and incoherent, repeated common templates, relied upon historic statutes and non-authoritative materials, failed to comply with court directions, and gave rise to serious concerns about coordinated promotion (including the involvement of Matrix Freedom). The court found the proceedings were wasting public resources and exposed litigants to contempt risks; costs were awarded against the claimants.

This is a first-instance judgment dealing with three representative claims brought by lay claimants who alleged that their mortgages had been "mis-sold" because the original mortgagees had assigned or securitised beneficial interests, concealing those transactions from borrowers and from HM Land Registry. The claimants sought substantial damages (including sums equating to the value of properties) and relied on a mix of historic statutes, non-authoritative material and standardised templates.

Parties and procedural posture:

• Claimants: Mr Stamp, Mr Whitworth and Mr Le Clere (all acting in person).
• Defendants: Capital Home Loans Limited trading as CHL Mortgages; Lloyds Bank PLC; Bank of Scotland PLC trading as Halifax.
• The three claims were considered together as representative of a large group of over two hundred substantially identical claims; some similar claims had already been struck out.

Nature of relief sought: Damages (large sums, in some cases claimed as the full value of the property) and declarations arising from alleged unlawful assignment/securitisation and concealment. The claimants also alleged breaches of a range of constitutional and statutory instruments.

Issues framed:

• Whether the statements of case disclosed a legally recognisable claim or were incoherent and an abuse of process (CPR 3.4(2)).
• Whether assignments or securitisations of equitable interests, if they occurred, had the effect of terminating the contractual relationship between borrower and registered mortgagee, or entitled borrowers to damages equivalent to the mortgage or property value.
• Whether claimants had complied with court directions and whether the group of claims showed signs of improper coordination or contempt of court.

Court’s reasoning and conclusions:

• The court accepted the defendants' evidence that where the register showed the defendant as registered proprietor, legal title remained with that proprietor; an assignment of a beneficial interest is not a registrable disposition and does not terminate the legal relationship between borrower and registered mortgagee (section 27 and section 58 Land Registration Act 2002). The court applied Paragon Finance plc v Pender and noted Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel on procedural consequences.
• The particulars of claim were largely templated, incoherent in parts, relied on non-authoritative material and a long list of historical statutes without factual connection. They did not disclose any proper cause of action and were, in the court’s view, an abuse of process likely to obstruct the just disposal of proceedings.
• There were serious concerns about coordinated encouragement and promotion of these claims (Matrix Freedom and template usage), raising potential contempt issues and justifying a robust response to protect court resources and other users.

Disposition: All three claims were struck out and costs were awarded to defendants. The court warned that future similar claims would not be issued and that promoters of such actions are warned they may face sanctions.

The court struck out the three representative claims. Rationale: the statements of case disclosed no reasonable grounds and were an abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2), they were incoherent and relied on misconceived legal theories about the effects of assignments/securitisations; under the Land Registration Act 2002 (sections 27 and 58) and established authority (Paragon Finance plc v Pender) a registered proprietor retains legal title and rights and a mere assignment of beneficial interest does not dissolve the contractual relationship or give rise to the extraordinary damages claimed. Costs were awarded to the defendants. The court also recorded serious concerns about coordinated promotion of these claims and potential contempt of court.