assignment of debt property law act

• Insights & events

Assigning debts and other contractual claims - not as easy as first thought

Harking back to law school, we had a thirst for new black letter law. Section 136 of the Law of the Property Act 1925 kindly obliged. This lays down the conditions which need to be satisfied for an effective legal assignment of a chose in action (such as a debt). We won’t bore you with the detail, but suffice to say that what’s important is that a legal assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor, must be absolute (i.e. no conditions attached) and crucially that written notice of the assignment must be given to the debtor.

When assigning debts, it’s worth remembering that you can’t legally assign part of a debt – any attempt to do so will take effect as an equitable assignment. The main practical difference between a legal and an equitable assignment is that the assignor will need to be joined in any legal proceedings in relation to the assigned debt (e.g. an attempt to recover that part of the debt).

Recent cases which tell another story

Why bother telling you the above?  Aside from our delight in remembering the joys of debating the merits of legal and equitable assignments (ehem), it’s worth revisiting our textbooks in the context of three recent cases. Although at first blush the statutory conditions for a legal assignment seem quite straightforward, attempts to assign contractual claims such as debts continue to throw up legal disputes:

• In  Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corp Europe Ltd v Euler Hermes Europe SA (NV) [2019] EWHC 2250 (Comm),  the High Court held that a performance bond issued under a construction contract was not effectively assigned despite the surety acknowledging a notice of assignment of the bond. Sadly, the notice of assignment failed to meet the requirements under the bond instrument that the assignee confirm its acceptance of a provision in the bond that required the employer to repay the surety in the event of an overpayment. This case highlights the importance of ensuring any purported assignment meets any conditions stipulated in the underlying documents.
• In  Promontoria (Henrico) Ltd v Melton [2019] EWHC 2243 (Ch) (26 June 2019) , the High Court held that an assignment of a facility agreement and legal charges was valid, even though the debt assigned had to be identified by considering external evidence. The deed of assignment in question listed the assets subject to assignment, but was illegible to the extent that the debtor’s name could not be deciphered. The court got comfortable that there had been an effective assignment, given the following factors: (i) the lender had notified the borrower of its intention to assign the loan to the assignee; (ii) following the assignment, the lender had made no demand for repayment; (iii) a manager of the assignee had given a statement that the loan had been assigned and the borrower had accepted in evidence that he was aware of the assignment. Fortunately for the assignee, a second notice of assignment - which was invalid because it contained an incorrect date of assignment - did not invalidate the earlier assignment, which was found to be effective. The court took a practical and commercial view of the circumstances, although we recommend ensuring that your assignment documents clearly reflect what the parties intend!
• Finally, in Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch),  the High Court held that a notice of assignment of a debt given to a debtor was valid, even though the effective date of assignment stated in the notice could not be verified by the debtor. The case concerned a debt assigned by the Co-op Bank to Promontoria and a joint notice given by assignor and assignee to the debtor that the debt had been assigned “on and with effect from 29 July 2016”. A subsequent statutory demand served by Promontoria on the debtor for the outstanding sums was disputed on the basis that the notice of assignment was invalid because it contained an incorrect date of assignment. Whilst accepting that the documentation was incapable of verifying with certainty the date of assignment, the Court held that the joint notice clearly showed that both parties had agreed that an assignment had taken place and was valid. This decision suggests that mistakes as to the date of assignment in a notice of assignment may not necessarily be fatal, if it is otherwise clear that the debt has been assigned.

The conclusion from the above? Maybe it’s not quite as easy as first thought to get an assignment right. Make sure you follow all of the conditions for a legal assignment according to the underlying contract and ensure your assignment documentation is clear.

Contact our experts for further advice

Search our site

• Practical Law

Legal assignment

Practical law uk glossary 9-107-6754  (approx. 3 pages).

• Only the benefit of an agreement may be assigned.
• The assignment must be absolute.
• The rights to be assigned must be wholly ascertainable and must not relate to part only of a debt.
• The assignment must be in writing and signed under hand by the assignor.
• Notice of the assignment must be received by the other party or parties for the assignment to take effect.
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Security and Quasi Security

English law assignments of part of a debt: Practical considerations

United Kingdom |  Publication |  December 2019

Enforcing partially assigned debts against the debtor

The increase of supply chain finance has driven an increased interest in parties considering the sale and purchase of parts of debts (as opposed to purchasing debts in their entirety).

While under English law part of a debt can be assigned, there is a general requirement that the relevant assignee joins the assignor to any proceedings against the debtor, which potentially impedes the assignee’s ability to enforce against the debtor efficiently.

This note considers whether this requirement may be dispensed with in certain circumstances.

Can you assign part of a debt?

Under English law, the beneficial ownership of part of a debt can be assigned, although the legal ownership cannot. 1  This means that an assignment of part of a debt will take effect as an equitable assignment instead of a legal assignment.

Joining the assignor to proceedings against the debtor

While both equitable and legal assignments are capable of removing the assigned asset from the insolvency estate of the assignor, failure to obtain a legal assignment and relying solely on an equitable assignment may require the assignee to join the relevant assignor as a party to any enforcement action against the debtor.

An assignee of part of a debt will want to be able to sue a debtor in its own name and, if it is required to join the assignor to proceedings against the debtor, this could add additional costs and delays if the assignor was unwilling to cooperate. 2

Kapoor v National Westminster Bank plc

English courts have, in recent years, been pragmatic in allowing an assignee of part of a debt to sue the debtor in its own name without the cooperation of the assignor.

In Charnesh Kapoor v National Westminster Bank plc, Kian Seng Tan 3 the court held that an equitable assignee of part of a debt is entitled in its own right and name to bring proceedings for the assigned debt. The equitable assignee will usually be required to join the assignor to the proceedings in order to ensure that the debtor is not exposed to double recovery, but the requirement is a procedural one that can be dispensed with by the court.

The reason for the requirement that an equitable assignee joins the assignor to proceedings against the debtor is not that the assignee has no right which it can assert independently, but that the debtor ought to be protected from the possibility of any further claim by the assignor who should therefore be bound by the judgment.

Application of Kapoor

It is a common feature of supply chain finance transactions that the assigned debt (or part of the debt) is supported by an independent payment undertaking. Such independent payment undertaking makes it clear that the debtor cannot raise defences and that it is required to pay the relevant debt (or part of a debt) without set-off or counterclaim. In respect of an assignee of part of an independent payment undertaking which is not disputed and has itself been equitably assigned to the assignee, we believe that there are good grounds that an English court would accept that the assignee is allowed to pursue an action directly against the debtor without needing the assignor to be joined, as this is likely to be a matter of procedure only, not substance.

This analysis is limited to English law and does not consider the laws of any other jurisdiction.

Notwithstanding the helpful clarifications summarised in Kapoor, as many receivables financing transactions involve a number of cross-border elements, assignees should continue to consider the effect of the laws (and, potentially court procedures) of any other relevant jurisdictions on the assignment of part of a debt even where the sale of such partial debt is completed under English law.

Legal title cannot be assigned in respect of part of a debt. A partial assignment would not satisfy the requirements for a legal assignment of section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

If an assignor does not consent to being joined as a plaintiff in proceedings against the debtor it would be necessary to join the assignor as a co-defendant. However, where an assignor has gone into administration or liquidation, there may be a statutory prohibition on joining such assignor as a co-defendant (without the leave of the court or in certain circumstances the consent of the administrator).

[2011] EWCA Civ 1083

• Financial institutions

Recent publications

Publication

International Restructuring Newswire

Welcome to the Q2 2024 edition of the Norton Rose Fulbright International Restructuring Newswire.

Global | Q2 2024

The Second stage of the EPBC Act reform is announced

On 16 April 2024, the Hon Tanya Plibersek MP, the Minister for the Environment and Water (the Minister) announced progress on the package of reforms to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (Cth) (EPBC Act).

Australia | April 23, 2024

Calling all tipsters: The DOJ’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosures for Individuals

The DOJ Criminal Division’s Pilot Program on Voluntary Self-Disclosure for Individuals aims to encourage individuals with potential criminal exposure to voluntarily disclose corporate criminal conduct in exchange for discretionary grants of immunity.

United States | April 22, 2024

Subscribe and stay up to date with the latest legal news, information and events . . .

© Norton Rose Fulbright LLP 2023

• Canada (English)
• Canada (Français)
• United States
• Deutschland (Deutsch)
• Germany (English)
• The Netherlands
• Türkiye
• United Kingdom
• South Africa
• Hong Kong SAR
• Marshall Islands
• Nordic region

• Construction
• Insolvency Law & Restructuring
• Commercial Litigation
• Debt Recovery
• Corporate and Commercial Lawyers
• Commercial Property Lawyer
• Intellectual Property Lawyers
• Business Migration Lawyers
• Defamation and Injurious Falsehood Lawyers
• Wills and Estate Lawyer
• Immigration Lawyer
• Conveyancing
• Compensation Claims
• Defamation Lawyers
• RCR Difference
• Partnerships & Succession

Notices of Assignment of Debt – What they are and why they matter.

A notice of assignment of debt is required by Queensland law when a debt is assigned to a new creditor. Issued to the debtor, it essentially documents that the debt has been transferred from the old creditor (assignor) to a new one (assignee).  

It’s the new creditor’s responsibility to send the notice to ensure they:  

• Comply with the law – In Queensland, the notice of assignment of a debt should be in writing and comply with section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974 (QLD). Issuing such notice to the debtor is a precondition for the assignment becoming legally effective.  
• Protect their rights as a creditor – The notice of assignment needs to be issued before the new creditor can collect the debt. Failure to do so can result in the debtor continuing to make payments to the old debtor, which can lead to disputes and complications.  
• Protect the debtor’s rights – Letting the debtor know there’s a new creditor to whom they owe money avoids confusion and potential misdirection of funds.  
• Encourage transparency and maintain accurate records – Providing a notice of assignment fosters transparency in the debt collection process and helps maintain an accurate record of the debt’s status. This latter point is particularly important during a merger, ensuring a smooth transition and avoiding future complications.  

Is there a limitation period or anything else to be wary of?  

The Property Law Act 1974 (QLD) doesn’t specify an exact timeframe within which a new creditor must issue a debtor a notice of assignment of debt, but there are some important time considerations to keep in mind:  

• Prompt notification – Despite there being no explicit time limit, it’s generally recommended that the notice be provided promptly after the assignment has taken place. The key practical reason for this is to avoid the debtor making a repayment to the old creditor, which can make it tricky for the new assignee to recoup the money.  
• Limitation period for debt recovery – The Limitation of Actions Act 1974 (QLD) stipulates most debts have a limitation period of 6 years from the date the cause of action accrued (when the debt became due and payable). If legal action isn’t commenced within this period, the creditor can lose their right to recover the debt. Providing a timely notice of assignment ensures the assignee can take legal action to recover the debt if necessary, within the limitation period.  
• Continuing cause of action – For some debts, such as those arising from a periodic contract or instalment payments, each missed payment can create a new cause of action. In these cases, the limitation period restarts with each missed payment. However, it’s still important to provide a notice of assignment as soon as possible to avoid confusion and ensure proper debt management.  

So while there’s no specific limitation period for providing a notice of assignment of debt in Queensland, it’s important to ensure you receive repayments from the get-go and are able to fully recoup the debt within the limitation period for debt recovery (generally 6 years).  

If you need help drafting a notice of assignment of debt, or require general advice, our debt recovery law experts are here to help. Contact us today.   

The blog published by Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers is intended as general information only and is not legal advice on any subject matter. By viewing the blog posts, the reader understands there is no solicitor-client relationship between the reader and the author. The blog should not be used as a substitute for legal advice from a legal practitioner, and readers are urged to consult RCR on any legal queries concerning a specific situation.  

Share Article:

Related Articles

Construction Debt Recovery: Ensuring your Hard Work is Rewarded

• There are few things more frustrating for tradespeople in

Home and land packages and duplex construction

• As the property market continually increases, Home and Land

How To Avoid Bankruptcy Through A Debt Agreement: When and how Part IX of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 can be used

• Debt agreements are administered under Part IX of the

Stay up to date with our latest articles

BRISBANE OFFICE

Lvl 15, 270 Adelaide St Brisbane, QLD 4000

Email:  [email protected]

Phone: 07 3009 8444

Fax:  07 3009 8499

SYDNEY OFFICE

Level 8, 88 Phillip Street Sydney, NSW 2000

Email: [email protected]

Phone: 02 9307 8900

Fax:  02 9307 8999

Copyright © 2021. All Rights Reserved | Rostron Carlyle Rojas Lawyers

• Stonegate Legal FAQ

Commercial Litigation

• Building & Construction
• Debt Recovery/Collection
• Body Corporate Debt Recovery Lawyer

Corporations Disputes

Commercial Lease Disputes

Tax Debt Disputes

• Civil / Personal Litigation
• Defamation Litigation

Wills / Estate Litigation

Insolvency Law

Statutory Demands

Litigation Services

• News & Articles

Debt Assignment in Queensland – A Complete Guide

Home » News & Articles » Debt Assignment in Queensland – A Complete Guide

NEWS & ARTICLES

• By Wayne Davis
• | September 17, 2023

Article Summary

A debt assignment is an agreement where a debt, along with all its associated legal rights and responsibilities, is transferred from the original creditor to a third-party purchaser. Once verified, the third party, now termed the assignee, becomes the official owner of the debt and has the right to collect it.

A “chose in action” or a “thing in action” is a legal term referring to a personal or proprietary right in intangible personal property, enforceable through litigation. This is different from “chose in possession”, or a “thing in possession” which refers to tangible items one can physically possess, like a book or car.

The legislation in Queensland, specifically the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld), provides for assignments of things in action.

An absolute debt assignment refers to the unconditional transfer of property or rights, ensuring the original owner retains no interest. The assignment should be complete for clarity between the debtor and the new creditor.

Before the new creditor can collect the debt, a formal notice must be issued to the debtor. This ensures the debtor knows they have a new creditor. Requirements for a valid notice include it being in writing, signed by the assignor, and containing clear identification of the assignor, assignee, and the debt.

The responsibility of ensuring a valid notice falls on the assignee. Several guidelines and legal cases have highlighted the importance of serving the notice in a manner that is most likely to bring it to the debtor’s attention. This could involve registered post or personal delivery.

Once the debt is effectively assigned and the debtor notified, the assignee can collect the debt and undertake any necessary legal actions. Often, debts that are assigned come with their own challenges, as many are sold precisely because they are problematic.

Legal avenues like court proceedings, enforcement warrants, or bankruptcy can be pursued. Challenges may arise due to misunderstandings by the debtor, disputes about the validity of the assignment, or challenges proving effective delivery of the notice to the debtor.

Table of Contents

Are you a creditor in Queensland who is struggling with debt assignment and is looking for a way to effectively manage the assignment of their debts?

Dealing with debt can sometimes be a lot for creditors to manage. Between the multiple debts that their business will likely manage and potential problem debtors who don’t seem to want to pay their debt, debts can sometimes spiral out of control!

If this is the case for you or your business, it may be time to consider assigning your debt.

The assignment of a debt occurs when the creditor of a debt sells their debt to a third-party buyer. This process can be complicated to understand, so it is important that you perform due diligence and research before engaging in this process.

Typically seen with banks and credit card companies, creditors will sometimes package their debts into debt books or tranches and sell them, rather than collecting them.

In this article our debt recovery lawyers will discuss the basics of debt assignment in Queensland so that you, as a creditor, can better understand this process.

What is a Debt Assignment?

The first question that is to be asked about debt assignment is what it is and how it works?

A debt assignment is an agreement that transfers a debt , and all of the legal rights and responsibilities associated with it, from the creditor to a third-party purchaser.

This provides the third party with the right to collect the debt, while the creditor can no longer engage in the debt recovery process with the debt assigned.

Once an assignment of debt is verified, the rights will be transferred to the assignee and they will be the official owner of the debt, meaning that they can collect the debt for the money it is worth.

Chose in Action (Thing in Action)

The right to recover a debt is a “thing in action” or a “chose in action”.

A “chose in action” (often referred to as a “thing in action”) is a legal term that denotes a personal right without possession, or a proprietary right in personal property that is intangible and not in one’s possession, but enforceable through litigation.

Common examples of choses in action include debts, shares in a company, and other rights to receive something or have something done.

Contrast this with “chose in possession” which refers to something tangible that one can physically possess, like a book, a car, or money.

The phrase “chose in action” originates from old French and the term “chose” means “thing”.

In Queensland, the assignments of things in action are provided for in legislation, particularly at section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974  (Qld) (“ the PLA ”).

Section 199 of the Property Law Act

Section 199(1) of the PLA states:

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice— (a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action; and (b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and (c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor.

This part of the section means that a the right to recover a debt (being a thing in action) can be legally assigned. This assignment must be absolute and the debtor should receive a written notice, and obtaining the debtor’s consent for this assignment is not mandatory.

Section 199(2) of the PLA states:

(2) If the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice— (a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under the assignor; or (b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action; the debtor may, if the debtor thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim to the debt or other thing in action to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under and in conformity with the provisions of the Act s relating to relief of trustees.

This part of the section says that if the debtor knows of disputes or conflicting claims regarding the assignment, they can either request claimants to clarify their stance or deposit the owed amount in court as per the Act’s guidelines.

These subsections raise some further questions, namely:

• What is an “ absolute debt assignment ” at law?
• What is a notice of debt assignment?

We will discuss these in further detail below.

What is an “Absolute Debt Assignment” at Law?

Absolute debt assignment refers to an unconditional transfer of property or rights, leaving no interest for the original owner.

Typically, it lets a creditor transfer their right to collect a debt to a third party. The debt assignment must be complete and without conditions for the benefit of both the debtor, who knows whom to pay, and the third party, who can legally claim the debt.

In Durham Brothers v Robertson [1898] 1 QB 765 , it was held that the document was not “an absolute assignment (not purporting to be by way of charge only)” and that the plaintiffs could not recover in the action. This was held because it was a charge. The Court said:

The document purports on the face of it to assign the debt, and it is not the less an absolute assignment because it contains, like any other mortgage, provisions that shew that it is only a security, and that there is a right to redeem. It is clear on the authorities that a mortgage with a power of redemption is an absolute assignment within the section.

In Clyne v Deputy Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1981) 150 CLR 1 , Mason J said at [24]:

An “absolute assignment” in the section signifies one which is unconditional.

In Austino Wentworthville Pty Limited v Metroland Australia Limited [2013] NSWCA 59 , Barrett JA said at [62], summarising the relevant principles emerging from the cases:

An “absolute” assignment is one that is unconditional and does not attempt to affect part only of the chose in action. The fact that an assignment otherwise absolute is accompanied by an express proviso for redemption, an implied right of redemption or the creation of a trust in respect of future proceeds does not deprive it of its absolute character. An assignment by way of charge is one the effect of which is to give a right of payment out of the subject matter assigned without outright transfer of that subject matter. Such an assignment occurs when, for example, there is a transfer of a right to be paid out of a particular fund or of so much of a debt as is sufficient to satisfy a future indebtedness. The character of the assignment must be ascertained from the terms and effect of the instrument, according to the construction of it as a whole.

So, to ascertain if the assignment is an absolute assignment, reference must be made to the contract (or deed of assignment), its terms and conditions, and read in the proper context.

Another requirement for an assigned debt to be valid is that the assignee must send a notice to the debtor.

What is a Notice of Debt Assignment?

Before the debt will be able to be collected by the new creditor, a notice of debt assignment must first be issued to the debtor. But what is this and what does it mean?

A notice of debt assignment is a formal notice that is issued to the debtor when a debt is assigned to a new creditor. The new creditor, or the assignee, must issue this notice to the debtor at their last recorded or known home address.

As a debtor, it is a sudden change to have a new creditor to whom they are making payments.

There may have to be a process of them switching details and making financial or legal arrangements to begin to make payments or to manage the debt in any other way of their choosing.

They should be provided the time to understand that they now have a new creditor, as this will likely be an unexpected change, and deal with their debt in the way that they choose, as they may have had previous arrangements or discussions with their initial creditor.

The purpose of the notice is to provide the debtor with this new information and to ensure that they begin making debt payments to the new creditor, rather than continuing to pay the previous creditor.

In Walter and Sullivan Ltd v J Murphy and Sons Ltd [1955] 1 All ER 853 , the court held that the following are the requirements of a valid notice of an assignment of a debt:

• The notice must be in writing.
• The notice must be signed by the assignor.
• The notice must identify the assignor and the assignee.
• The notice must identify the debt that is being assigned.

In Mango Boulevard Pty Ltd & Anor v Mio Art Pty Ltd & Ors [2016] QCA 148 , Fraser JA said at [34] citing the relevant authorities:

… to constitute valid notice, there must be some kind of formal notification by the assignee, or possibly by the assignor on his behalf, to the debtor in order to achieve the object described in the Walter & Sullivan case. This view is also consistent with the decision of the Court of Appeal in Talcott v John Lewis & Co Ltd [1940] 3 All ER 592, where it was held that a notice stamped by a creditor on his invoice stating that the invoice should be transferred and payment made to the assignee, was ineffective, both because it was insufficiently plain in its wording, and because it was not a notice sent by the assignee to the debtor.

Therefore, we would suggest that at a minimum, the written notice of debt assignment should include:

• A notice that it is an assignment of debt.
• The name and details of the assignor of the debt (old creditor).
• As many particulars of the original debt to enable the debtor to identify the debt to which the notice relates.
• All of the details of the assignee of the debt (new creditor).
• Direction to pay the debt to the assignee and the new payment details.
• Full particulars of the original debt amount, plus and costs and interest incurred.
• How the debtor can discharge the debt by payment.
• The assignment must be signed by the assignor.

It is important to note that the assignment does not need to be in any particular format.  However, it is advisable to have a lawyer draft the assignment to ensure that it is valid and enforceable.

After you have a valid assignment contract or deed of debt assignment signed; and you have a valid notice of assignment drafted, you must now give the notice of debt assignment to the debtor.

Proper Service of the Notice of Assignment of Debt

The notice must be valid, and it is the responsibility of the assignee to ensure that the notice is valid. The notice of assignment must be absolute and in writing, and the new creditor (or old creditor) must ensure that the notice is delivered properly to the debtor.

Section 347 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) sets out the general rules for serving notices under the Act.  A notice may be served on a person:

• By delivering it personally to the person.
• By leaving it at the person’s usual place of abode or business.
• By posting it as a letter addressed to the person at their usual place of abode or business.

If the person is unknown or absent from the State, the notice may be served in such manner as directed by the court.

The Act also provides that a notice posted as a letter shall be deemed to have been served, unless the contrary is shown, at the time when by the ordinary course of post the notice would be delivered.

In Anning v Anning (1907) 4 CLR 1049 , Griffith CJ said of the then equivalent of s 199(1) that:

The section does not say by whom the notice is to be given, but it is, I think, clear that it may be given either by the assignor or the assignee.

In Grayprop Pty Ltd v Maharaj International Pty Ltd [2001] QSC 387 , it was held that the posting of a notice to a post office box did not comply with s.347 so as to attract the deeming provisions in that section relating to receipt of the notice. In that case Philippides J referred to David Sarikaya v Victorian Workcover Authority [1997] FCA 1372 , where Black CJ held:

… a post office box is not, in my view, the “address of a place” at which a document may be “left” for a person. The ordinary notion of “post office box” is of a container at a post office into which mail that has been duly posted is placed by postal authorities for retrieval by or on behalf of the holder of the box. Whether or not such a box is, in this context, the “address of a place”, it is not the address of a place at which a document may be “left” by way of service.

In Walter and Sullivan Ltd v J Murphy and Sons Ltd [1955] 1 All ER 853 , the court held that notice of an assignment of a debt must be given to a debtor in a way that is reasonably likely to bring it to their attention.

In the case, the assignor had given the debtor notice of the assignment by sending a letter to their registered office. However, the debtor had moved office and the letter was never received.

The court held that the notice was not valid because it had not been given in a way that was reasonably likely to bring it to the debtor’s attention.

Therefore, some takeaways re. service include:

• To give valid notice of an assignment of a debt, the notice must be given to the debtor in a way that is reasonably likely to bring it to their attention.
• This may involve sending the notice by registered post or delivering it in person.
• It is not enough to simply send the notice to the debtor’s registered office if the debtor has moved office and the notice is not received.

Enforcing an Assigned Debt

The debt has been assigned effectively and the notice has been delivered to the debtor. Now what?

The assignee is now entitled to collect the debt and to take any collection or legal action of their choosing.

As debts that are assigned are often somewhat problematic, as many sell problematic debts, legal action may be the choice that many take.

Commencing court proceedings and receiving and enforcing a judgement are some of the recovery options that assignees will have in the legal regard, such as enforcement warrants, bankruptcy , and issuing a statutory demand / winding up .

The recovery of an assigned debt can often raise several issues for assignees in the initial stages. There are several factors and occurrences that may cause these issues to arise, including:

• Misunderstanding of the debt assignment process by debtors, resulting in confusion or refusal to pay, as they do not understand that they are paying their debt or the same debt as before.
• As we have discussed, a debt assignment must be legal and valid. The debtor may raise a dispute regarding the validity of the assignment of debt, regardless of whether proper procedure was followed or not.
• You must be able to prove that the notice of assignment was effectively validly provided to the debtor. If you have failed to keep proper records of the formation and delivery of the notice, you may struggle to prove that it was both valid and provided.
• If the debtor had previously arranged any kind of understanding with the assignor, they may be able to take action against you for not fulfilling the arrangement, even if you were not notified about it before the sale. This, however, may constitute a breach of contract by the assignor, so you may be able to take action of your own if this turns out to be the case.

Benefits of Debt Assignment

There are several benefits for all parties involved in the assignment of debt, including;

For the Assignor:

The assignor, or the individual or party that is assigning the debt to a new creditor, benefits in several ways and circumstances by selling the debt.

For one, they will have an increased cash flow by being paid a larger piece of the debt in one payment, rather than smaller payments over an extended period, which can help them get their finances back on track or invest in their business.

They will also no longer have the risk of a debt, which may be unable to be collected due to insolvency or other reasons, mitigating risk from their business.

Furthermore, the time and resources spent dealing with the debt will no longer be required, freeing up their business resources for alternative use.

For the Assignee:

The assignee, or the new creditor of the debt, will also be privy to several benefits from the assignment of debt process.

As a debt purchaser , the chances are they will have access to resources or be experienced debt collectors who have the time and resources to focus on debt collection , increasing their chances of being paid.

They will also pay less than the debt is worth for the rights to collect it, leaving room for a large profit margin.

What to Consider in Debt Assignment

While there are many benefits that may be reaped from a debt assignment on either side of the matter, there are also some considerations that should be made.  They include;

The assignor of the debt should consider if this process is the right one for them and their business. After all, if the debt was collected regularly, they would collect more money over time, rather than being paid a larger amount of the debt immediately but not the full amount at any point in time.

The suitability of assigning a debt is something that can only be decided based on the specific circumstances of the matter and of the assignor’s business, so they should take the time to consider.

If the assignor wishes to maintain a relationship with this debtor for any reason, they should also consider notifying the debtor separately.

The assignee of the debt has several considerations to make, also regarding the suitability of this process for them. They will be taking on the responsibility of collecting a debt, which can take time and resources, so this must be feasible for them to commit to.

They are also accepting the risk of not being paid the debt at all or receiving only a small amount of it, so this must be a consideration made.

There is also a process that must be followed once the debt has been assigned, as discussed, so this should be considered as something that must be completed.

Limitation Dates for Assigned Debts

An assignee of debt must ensure that they are within the limitations of actions acts for each State and Territory to legally commence recovery of the debt.

The purpose of limitations of actions acts is to limit the delay for creditors to take action against a debtor for outstanding monies.

The limitation period for a contract debt is six (6) years in Queensland, calculated from the point of breach.

Where an assignee has been assigned a debt, the point of breach will commence from the date the debt was assigned to the assignee.

However, in some circumstances, where a debtor acknowledges the debt or makes a payment in respect of the debt, the point of breach starts from the date of acknowledgement or the last payment made by the debtor.

Common Mistakes to Avoid when Assigning Debt

There are a few things that you should avoid when assigning your debt. These include:

• Not having a written agreement : It is important to have a written agreement in place when assigning debt. This agreement should clearly identify the debt being assigned, the assignor, the assignee, and the terms of the assignment.
• Not notifying the debtor : The debtor must be notified of the assignment in writing. This notice should be given to the debtor before they make any payments to the assignor.
• Assigning debt that is not assignable : Not all debts can be assigned. For example, debts that are personal in nature, such as claims for defamation or assault, cannot be assigned.
• Failing to comply with the applicable laws and regulations : There are specific laws and regulations that govern the assignment of debt. It is important to comply with these laws and regulations to ensure that the assignment is valid.

Here are some additional tips to avoid common mistakes when assigning debt:

• Have a lawyer review the assignment agreement : A lawyer can help you to draft an assignment agreement that is valid and enforceable.
• Use a registered post to send the notice of assignment to the debtor : This will help to ensure that the debtor receives the notice and that there is a record of the notice being sent.
• Keep a copy of all documentation related to the assignment : This includes the assignment agreement, the notice of assignment, and any other relevant documents.

If you have any questions about assigning debt, you should consult with a lawyer asap.

FAQ on Debt Assignment in Queensland

Navigating the intricacies of debt assignment can be complex, given its multifaceted nature and the legal implications involved.

Whether you’re an assignor looking to transfer the rights to a debt or an assignee aiming to comprehend the dynamics of your new responsibility, it’s crucial to understand the entire spectrum of the process.

A debt assignment is a legal transfer of a creditor’s right to collect a debt to a third party, known as the assignee. Once assigned, the original creditor can no longer engage in the debt recovery process.

What is a “Chose in Action”?

A “chose in action” refers to a legal right without possession, like debts or shares in a company. It contrasts with “chose in possession,” which refers to tangible items like a car or book.

What does Section 199 of the Property Law Act 1974 (Qld) discuss?

It provides the legal framework for the assignment of things in action in Queensland, specifying that for a debt assignment to be valid, a written notice must be given to the debtor.

Do I need the debtor’s consent to assign the debt?

No, the debtor’s consent isn’t mandatory. However, they should receive a written notice of the debt assignment.

What is an “Absolute Debt Assignment” at law?

It refers to an unconditional transfer of rights, meaning the original owner retains no interest. This transfer allows the third party (assignee) to legally claim the debt.

What should a Notice of Debt Assignment include?

It should provide details about the original creditor, the assignee, specifics of the debt, payment instructions, legal implications, and the dates of assignment and notice.

Why is the notice important?

It’s a legal requirement for the assignment to be effective, ensures clear communication with the debtor, protects the assignee’s rights, and prevents potential disputes.

A Notice of Debt Assignment is a formal document sent to a debtor informing them that their debt has been transferred to a new creditor (assignee). This notice ensures the debtor makes payments to the new creditor rather than the original one.

Why is a notice of assignment of debt necessary?

It allows the debtor to understand and adapt to the unexpected change in the party to whom they owe money. It also gives them time to arrange their finances or change any existing agreements made with the original creditor.

What are the requirements for a valid Notice of Debt Assignment?

Based on legal precedents for a Notice of Debt Assignment to be valid it must be in writing; It should be signed by the original creditor (assignor); and it should identify both the assignor and the assignee; and the specific debt being assigned must be detailed.

What should be included in a well-drafted Notice of Debt Assignment?

A well-drafted Notice of Debt Assignment should include a statement clarifying it as an assignment of debt; details of the assignor (original creditor) and the assignee (new creditor); comprehensive information on the original debt, including any additional costs and interest; instructions on how to make payments to the new creditor; the method to finalise the debt payment; and the signature of the assignor.

How should the notice be served to the debtor?

For effective service, the notice should be personally delivered to the debtor; or left at their usual residence or place of business; or posted as a letter to their regular address. However, precautions should be taken regarding post office boxes as they might not comply with certain legal provisions.

What are the implications if the notice isn’t properly served?

A notice must be delivered in a manner that makes it likely to come to the debtor’s attention. Improper delivery can render the notice invalid. For instance, merely sending it to a moved office or a post office box might not suffice.

Does the format of the assignment need to be specific?

No, there isn’t a mandatory format. However, having a lawyer draft the notice ensures its validity and enforceability.

Who can issue the Notice of Debt Assignment?

Either the assignor or the assignee can issue the notice.

What does it mean when a debt is assigned?

When a debt is assigned, it means the original creditor (assignor) has transferred their rights to collect the debt to a new creditor (assignee). This transfer requires a formal notice to be given to the debtor.

After a debt has been assigned, who is responsible for collecting it?

The assignee, or the new creditor, is now responsible for collecting the debt. They can choose any legal collection method, which might include court proceedings.

What issues might arise after the assignment of a debt?

Issues can arise from misunderstandings by the debtor, challenges to the validity of the assignment, lack of proper documentation to prove the notice was provided, or previous agreements with the assignor that were not known by the assignee.

How does the assignor benefit from assigning a debt?

Assignors can benefit from an immediate influx of cash, reduction in the risk of non-collection, and a decrease in time and resources spent on collection efforts.

How does the assignee benefit from purchasing an assigned debt?

Assignees typically purchase debts at a reduced rate, giving them a chance for a higher profit margin upon collection. Additionally, experienced debt collectors might have the resources and expertise to effectively recover debts?

Are there any considerations to be made before assigning or accepting a debt?

Yes. Assignors should evaluate if debt assignment is suitable for their business situation and consider notifying the debtor separately. Assignees must weigh the commitment of resources against the potential risk of non-collection and ensure they understand and follow the necessary post-assignment processes.

Is there a time limit for the assignee to take action on a debt?

Yes. The limitation period for a contract debt is typically six years from the point of breach. However, this might vary if the debtor acknowledges the debt or makes a payment.

Are there common mistakes made during debt assignments?

Some common pitfalls include not having a written agreement, failing to notify the debtor, assigning non-assignable debts, and not adhering to relevant laws and regulations.

How can I ensure that the assignment process goes smoothly?

It’s advisable to consult with a lawyer, use registered post for notices, and keep thorough documentation of every step in the process.

Can all debts be assigned?

No. Some debts, especially those personal in nature like claims for defamation or assault, cannot be assigned. Always check the nature of the debt and legal stipulations before proceeding.

Wayne Davis

Disclaimer:  The content on this website is intended only to provide a general summary of information of interest. It is not intended to be comprehensive nor does it constitute legal advice. We attempt to ensure that the content is current but we do not guarantee its accuracy. You should seek legal or other professional advice before acting or relying on any of the content of this website. Your use of this website or the receipt of any information on this website is not intended to create nor does it create a solicitor-client relationship.

Discuss Your Case Today

• You'll get a no-fee, no-obligation 30 minute consult with a lawyer

Recent News & Articles

False sexual allegations & defamation claims, i’ve received a concerns notice, what do i do, sending a concerns notice – complete guide, serious harm threshold in defamation, recovery of unpaid legal fees – complete guide for lawyers, contract law 101 – specific performance, claim a no obligation case evaluation, discuss your case with a trusted lawyer.

We approach your dispute with – strategic thinking, commercial solutions & positive outcomes.  Our honest process is designed to get you the best commercially sensible resolution.

Quick Links

Frequently Asked Questions

News & Blogs

• Free Case Evaluation

Individual liability limited by a scheme approved under professional standards legislation.

• Building & Construction Disputes
• Debt Recovery Lawyers
• Civil / PersonalLitigation
• Body Corporate Debt Recovery
• Wills & Estates Litigation
• Insolvency Lawyers
• Letters of Demand
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Drafting Credit Contracts
• Office Hours

Monday – Friday 8:30 AM – 5:00 PM

• Brisbane City

Level 10/ 95 North Quay, Brisbane City, QLD 4000

• 07 3180 0143
• Sunshine Coast

3/ 67 Mary Street, Noosaville, QLD 4566

• 07 5346 0366

At Stonegate Legal, client satisfaction is our top priority. We are proud to have served hundreds of clients who have had positive experiences working with us.

Copyright © 2023  Stonegate Legal  Pty Ltd – All Rights Reserved – Stonegate Legal® is a registered trademark |  Terms |   Privacy  |  Sitemaps  |  *Conditions Apply

About Stonegate Legal

Building & Construction

Debt Recovery / Collection

Civil / Personal Disputes

Defamation Litigations

1300 545 133

No Fee, No Obligation Case Evaluation

Assignment Involves Transfer of Rights to Collect Outstanding Debts

Does the law allow a creditor to sell a debt to someone else, the law allows a creditor to whom a debtor owes money to transfer the right to collect the outstanding monies to another person who then becomes the assignee creditor., understanding what constitutes as a legally binding assignment of creditor rights to collect a debt.

Right to Collect on Debts

Within the decision of Clark v. Werden , 2011 ONCA 619 the Court of Appeal confirmed the existence of the right to transfer debts as an assignment in accordance to the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act , R.S.O. 1990, c. C.34 , which prescribes the various requirements when a creditor transfers ownership of rights involving monies owed, among other things. Specifically, the Court of Appeal stated:

Clark v. Werden , 2011 ONCA 619 at paragraph 13

[13]   The ability to assign a debt or legal chose in action is codified in s. 53 of the  Conveyancing and Law of Property Act , which provides that a debt is assignable subject to the equities between the original debtor and creditor and reads as follows:

53 (1) Any absolute assignment made on or after the 31st day of December, 1897, by writing under the hand of the assignor, not purporting to be by way of charge only, of any debt or other legal chose in action of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive or claim such debt or chose in action is effectual in law, subject to all equities that would have been entitled to priority over the right of the assignee if this section had not been enacted, to pass and transfer the legal right to such debt or chose in action from the date of such notice, and all legal and other remedies for the same, and the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor.

Partially Assigned

Interestingly, it should be noted that the statute law refers to an " absolute assignment "; however, such reference is made without fully defining the rights and duties of creditors and assignees in regards to concerns for the partial assignment of a debt.  However, in such circumstances as where a partial assignment of debt occurs, and therefore where there is more one assignee who assumes various rights of the original creditor, the assignee must include all assignees, or the original creditor if the original creditor retained a portion of the debt, when legal action is brought against debtor.  This requirement was stated by the Court of Appeal within the case of DiGuilo v. Boland , 1958 CanLII 92 wherein it was stated:

DiGuilo v. Boland , 1958 CanLII 92

The main reason why an assignee of a part of a debt is required to join all parties interested in the debt in an action to recover the part assigned to him is in my opinion because the Court cannot adjudicate completely and finally without having such parties before it.  The absence of such parties might result in the debtor being subjected to future actions in respect of the same debt, and moreover might result in conflicting decisions being arrived at concerning such debt.

Failed Notice

Of potentially grave concern to creditors, and potentially with great relief to debtors, for an assignee to retain the right to pursue the debtor, express written notice of the assignment is required.  This requirement was stated in 1124980 Ontario Inc. v. Liberty Mutual Insurance Company and Inco Ltd. , 2003 CanLII 45266  as part of the four part test to establish the right to pursue an assigned debt:

1124980 Ontario Inc.  v. Liberty Mutual , 2003 CanLII 45266 at paragraph 44

[44]   Accordingly, for there to be a valid legal assignment under  section 53(1) of the  CLPA , four requirements must be met:

a)  there must be debt or chose in action;

b)  the assignment must be absolute;

c)  the assignment must be written; and

d)  written notice of the assignment must be given to the debtor.

Where there is a failure of notice, and therefore failure to comply with the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act , it is said that the right to assign fails in law; however, relief in equity, via an equitable assignment may be available to an assignee affected by failure of notice.  Generally, in equity, when failure of notice occurs, the assignee is unable, in law, to bring an action in the name of the assignee and may do so only in the name of the creditor; however, even in the absence of proper notice as results in failure of assignment in law, and failure ot enjoin the creditor in an action pursued as an equitable assignment, the court may remain prepared to waive such a requirement whereas such occurred in the matter of  Landmark Vehicle Leasing Corporation v. Mister Twister Inc. , 2015 ONCA 545 wherein it was stated:

Landmark v. Mister Twister , 2015 ONCA 545 at paragraphs 10 to 16

[10]    Section 53(1) requires “ express notice in writing ” to the debtor.  Although there is some ambiguity in her reasons, it would appear that the trial judge found that Mr.  Blazys had express notice of the assignment, but not notice in writing.  Ross Wemp Leasing therefore did not assign the leases to Landmark in law: see  80 Mornelle Properties Inc.  v. Malla Properties Ltd. , 2010 ONCA 850 (CanLII) , 327 D.L.R.  (4th) 361, at para.  22 .  Ross Wemp Leasing did, however, assign the leases to Landmark in equity.  An equitable assignment does not require any notice, let alone written notice:  Bercovitz Estate v. Avigdor , [1961] O.J.  No.  20 (C.A.), at paras.  16, 25.

[11]   The appellants, relying on  DiGuilo v. Boland , 1958 CanLII 92 (ON CA), [1958] O.R.  384 (C.A.), aff’d, [1961] S.C.C.A.  vii, argue that as the appellants did not have written notice of the assignment, Landmark could not sue on its own.  Instead, Landmark had to join Ross Wemp Leasing in the action.  The appellants argue that the failure to join Ross Wemp Leasing requires that the judgment below be set aside.

[12]    DiGuilo does in fact require that the assignor of a chose in action be joined in the assignee’s claim against the debtor when the debtor has not received written notice of the assignment.  The holding in DiGuilo tracks rule 5.03(3) of the  Rules of Civil Procedure , R.R.O.  1990, Reg.  194 : In a proceeding by the assignee of a debt or other chose in action, the assignor shall be joined as a party unless,

(a) the assignment is absolute and not by way of charge only; and

(b) notice in writing has been given to the person liable in respect of the debt or chose in action that it has been assigned to the assignee.  [Emphasis added.]

[13]   Yet the assignee’s failure to join the assignor does not affect the validity of the assignment or necessarily vitiate a judgment obtained by the assignee against the debtor.  Rule 5.03(6) reads:

The court may by order relieve against the requirement of joinder under this rule.

[14]   The joinder requirement is intended to guard the debtor against a possible second action by the assignor and to permit the debtor to pursue any remedies it may have against the assignor without initiating another action:  DiGuilo , at p.  395.  Where the assignee’s failure to join the assignor does not prejudice the debtor, the court may grant the relief in rule 5.03(6) : see  Gentra Canada Investments Inc.  v. Lipson , 2011 ONCA 331 (CanLII), 106 O.R.  (3d) 261, at paras.  59 - 65 , leave to appeal refused, [2011] S.C.C.A.  No.  327.

[15]   In this case, the trial judge found that Mr.  Blazys, and effectively all of the appellants, gained actual notice of the lease assignments very shortly after the assignments were made and well before Landmark sued.  Armed with actual, albeit not written, notice of the assignment, the appellants could fully protect themselves against any prejudice from Landmark’s failure to join Ross Wemp Leasing.  Had the appellants seen any advantage in joining Ross Wemp Leasing, either to defend against Landmark’s claim or to advance a claim against Ross Wemp Leasing, the appellants could have moved for joinder under rule 5.03(4).  The appellants’ failure to bring a motion to add Ross Wemp Leasing speaks loudly to the absence of any prejudice caused by Landmark’s failure to join the assignor.

[16]   Ross Wemp Leasing perhaps should have been a party to the proceeding.  Landmark’s failure to join Ross Wemp Leasing, however, did not prejudice the appellants and should have had no impact on the trial judgment.  If requested, this court will make a  nunc pro tunc order relieving Landmark from the requirement of joining Ross Wemp Leasing in the action.

Summary Comment

The rights to collect on a debt can be sold and transferred from the original creditor to a substitute creditor or assignee who then takes on the rights of the original creditor.  Indeed, the selling and buying of individual debts, or debts within an entire portfolio debts is common within business.  The entire collection services industry is based on the concept of buying outstanding debt and then standing in the shoes of the original creditor and pursuing the payment of the debt.  Other forms of buying and selling debt includes mortgage swaps, among other things.

Get a FREE ¼ HOUR CONSULTATION

Need Help? Let's Get Started Today

Retained this office for a personal matter, was very satisfied with the job done, the cost was in line with what everyone else was charging. I got told how much it would cost and it came in slightly under what I expected. Very pleased with this office, kn

~ Jason Yonick

Denise is the one I want in my corner especially for all things related to residential tenancies. Thank you Denise for your wisdom, tenacity and most importantly your results!

~ Roger Bouma

~ James Buren

Absolutely amazing service. As an out of town landlord it could have been very difficult to deal with such a challenging tenant and complex situation, (21-001) but Denise and her team smoothed the way, explaining clearly the processes, the alternatives, e

~ Judith

Vlahos Trailer Park recommends Ranger, we had excellent legal service and will use them again when needed. Thank you Denise!

~ A. J. Yiouroukis

A goal of Ranger Paralegal Service is to provide each client with noteworthy service in effort to earn client opinions that Ranger Paralegal Service is the best Paralegal in Oshawa, Pickering, Toronto, Markham, and surrounding areas.

A goal of Ranger Paralegal Service is to provide each client with noteworthy service in effort to earn client opinions that Ranger Paralegal Service is the best Paralegal in Oshawa, Courtice, Scarborough, Bowmanville, and surrounding areas.

Ranger Paralegal Service

138 Castlebar Crescent Oshawa, Ontario, L1J 7B4

P: (905) 240-7529 E: [email protected]

Hours of Business:

09:00AM - 05:00PM 09:00AM - 05:00PM 09:00AM - 05:00PM 09:00AM - 05:00PM 09:00AM - 05:00PM Mon day : Tue sday : Wed nesday : Thu rsday : Fri day :

By appointment only.  Call for details. Messages may be left anytime.

Serving Within:

Oshawa Peterborough Lindsay North York Bowmanville Toronto

Pickering Ajax Courtice Uxbridge Port Perry and surrounding areas.

• Skip to main content
• Skip to navigation

legislation.gov.uk

• Browse Legislation
• New Legislation
• Coronavirus Legislation
• Changes To Legislation

Search Legislation

Law of property act 1925, you are here:.

• UK Public General Acts
• 1925 c. 20 (Regnal. 15_and_16_Geo_5)
• Section 136
• Table of Contents
• Previous: Provision
• Next: Provision

Print Options

What version.

• Latest available (Revised)
• Original (As enacted)

Advanced Features

• Show Geographical Extent (e.g. E ngland, W ales, S cotland and N orthern I reland)
• Show Timeline of Changes

Opening Options

• Open whole Act
• Open Act without Schedules
• Open Schedules only

More Resources

• Original: King's Printer Version

Changes over time for: Section 136

Alternative versions:.

• 01/02/1991 - Amendment
• 01/07/1991 - Amendment

Changes to legislation:

Changes to legislation.

Revised legislation carried on this site may not be fully up to date. Changes and effects are recorded by our editorial team in lists which can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area. Where those effects have yet to be applied to the text of the legislation by the editorial team they are also listed alongside the legislation in the affected provisions. Use the ‘more’ link to open the changes and effects relevant to the provision you are viewing.

Changes and effects yet to be applied to the whole Act associated Parts and Chapters:

• Act applied by 2023 asc 3 s. 146(5)

Whole provisions yet to be inserted into this Act (including any effects on those provisions):

• s. 52(2)(dc) (dd) inserted by 2016 c. 22 Sch. 7 para. 1(2)

136 Legal assignments of things in action. E+W

(1) Any absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

(a) the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

(b) all legal and other remedies for the same; and

(c) the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a) that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

(b) of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the M1 Trustee Act, 1925.

(2) This section does not affect the provisions of the M2 Policies of Assurance Act, 1867.

[ F1 (3) The county court has jurisdiction (including power to receive payment of money or securities into court) under the proviso to subsection (1) of this section where the amount or value of the debt or thing in action does not exceed [ F2 £30,000 ] . ]

Textual Amendments

F1 S. 136(3) added by County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28, SIF 34) , s. 148(1) , Sch. 2 Pt. II para. 4

F2 Words in s. 136(3) substituted (1.7.1991) by S.I. 1991/724 , art. 2(8) , Sch. Pt. I (with art. 12 )

Modifications etc. (not altering text)

C1 S. 136 excluded (12.2.1992) by S.I. 1992/225 , reg. 18(2)(c) ; and (19.12.1995) by S.I. 1995/3272 , reg. 32(5)

S. 136 excluded (26.11.2001) by S.I. 2001/3755 , reg. 38(5)

S. 136 excluded (26.12.2003) by The Financial Collateral Arrangements (No. 2) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3226) , reg. 4(3)

C2 S. 136(1) proviso extended (1.7.1991) by S.I. 1991/724 , art. 2(5) (with art. 12 )

C3 S. 136(3) modified by County Courts Act 1984 (c. 28, SIF 34) , s. 24(2) ( c )

Marginal Citations

M1 1925 c. 19 .

M2 1867 c. 144 .

Back to top

Options/Help

Print the whole act.

• PDF The Whole Act
• Web page The Whole Act

Print The Whole Part

• PDF The Whole Part
• Web page The Whole Part

Print This Section only

• PDF This Section only
• Web page This Section only

You have chosen to open The Whole Act

The Whole Act you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.

Would you like to continue?

• Continue to open

You have chosen to open The Whole Act as a PDF

The Whole Act you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download.

You have chosen to open The Whole Act without Schedules

The Whole Act without Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download. You may also experience some issues with your browser, such as an alert box that a script is taking a long time to run.

You have chosen to open The Whole Act without Schedules as a PDF

The Whole Act without Schedules you have selected contains over 200 provisions and might take some time to download.

You have chosen to open the Whole Act

You have chosen to open the whole act without schedules, legislation is available in different versions:.

Latest Available (revised): The latest available updated version of the legislation incorporating changes made by subsequent legislation and applied by our editorial team. Changes we have not yet applied to the text, can be found in the ‘Changes to Legislation’ area.

Original (As Enacted or Made): The original version of the legislation as it stood when it was enacted or made. No changes have been applied to the text.

See additional information alongside the content

Geographical Extent: Indicates the geographical area that this provision applies to. For further information see ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.

Show Timeline of Changes: See how this legislation has or could change over time. Turning this feature on will show extra navigation options to go to these specific points in time. Return to the latest available version by using the controls above in the What Version box.

Different options to open legislation in order to view more content on screen at once

Access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item from this tab. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

• the original print PDF of the as enacted version that was used for the print copy
• lists of changes made by and/or affecting this legislation item
• confers power and blanket amendment details
• all formats of all associated documents
• correction slips
• links to related legislation and further information resources

Timeline of Changes

This timeline shows the different points in time where a change occurred. The dates will coincide with the earliest date on which the change (e.g an insertion, a repeal or a substitution) that was applied came into force. The first date in the timeline will usually be the earliest date when the provision came into force. In some cases the first date is 01/02/1991 (or for Northern Ireland legislation 01/01/2006). This date is our basedate. No versions before this date are available. For further information see the Editorial Practice Guide and Glossary under Help.

Use this menu to access essential accompanying documents and information for this legislation item. Dependent on the legislation item being viewed this may include:

Click 'View More' or select 'More Resources' tab for additional information including:

• New site design
• Accessibility
• Privacy Notice

• Publications
• Mortgage Claims by Assignee Mortgagees: Evidencing the Right to the Mortgagee’s Remedies

Mortgage Claims by Assignee Mortgagees: Evidencing the Right to the Mortgagee’s Remedies 02 September 2020

It has long been a known problem in mortgage law that s.114 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which automatically transfers the right to the mortgage debt when the mortgage is transferred by deed, does not apply to registered land. That has been clear since at least Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760 by reference to the Land Registration Act 1925. Thus, for registered land, the debt must be assigned separately . Pender, however, also makes clear that the registered proprietor of a legal charge has the right to possession, even if no right to the debt.

Despite these long-standing principles, mortgage cases brought by an assignee of the mortgage often face defences that they  are not  entitled to the relief they have sought. One solution, to produce the deed of assignment, can raise issues about redaction of non-relevant parts, when one deed transfers many mortgages.

Two recent cases discuss these issues. On procedure, the court has considered the more general question of when a party can redact parts of a document which the court is asked to construe on the basis that such parts are irrelevant. On substantive law, the courts have recently considered which documents are necessary to evidence an assignment of a debt secured by mortgage. In this paper, we consider issues of evidence in light of those cases and discuss the practical implications for practitioners, particularly in the context of mortgages.

Production of Documentary Evidence

The first part of this paper looks at redaction of documents in the context of disclosure.

Standard disclosure, under CPR 31, that is the production of documents on which a party relies or which may adversely affect or support a parties case, is an intrinsic part of the way civil ligation operates. Trials are not to be conducted by ambush thus each party must have an adequate opportunity to deal with the other side’s evidence fairly. That said, there are a number of rules of both law and procedure which can operate to prevent the production of relevant documents in a given case; litigation privilege is one obvious example. But what about the redaction of documents adduced as evidence by one party on the ground of confidentiality or irrelevance?

The practice of blanking out parts of documents is not a new one. Practitioners have routinely done so where part of the document is privileged or contains what they consider to be irrelevant material. In  GE Capital v Bankers Trust  [1995] 1 W.L.R. 172, CA, just before the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules, Hoffmann LJ said:

“It has long been the practice that a party is entitled to seal up or cover up parts of a document which he claims to be irrelevant … In my view, the test for whether on discovery part of a document can be withheld on grounds of irrelevance is simply whether that part is irrelevant. The test for whether part can be withheld on grounds of privilege is simply whether that part is privileged. There is no additional requirement that the part must deal with an entirely different subject-matter from the rest.”

Redaction within the CPR has been discussed in the more recent case of Atos Consulting v Avis Plc [2007] EWHC 323 (TCC). In that case, Ramsey J gave guidance as to the correct judicial approach to be taken where the documents disclosed by one party were redacted and another party, by application, sought to challenge the redactions, either on the ground of lack of privilege or on the ground that the redacted text was relevant. At 37 the following 5 helpful principles as to redaction were outlined:

“(1)  The Court has to consider the evidence produced on the application.

(2)  If the Court is satisfied that the right to withhold inspection of a document is established by the evidence and there are no sufficient grounds for challenging the correctness of that asserted right, the Court will uphold the right.

(3)  If the Court is not satisfied that the right to withhold inspection is established because, for instance, the evidence does not establish a legal right to withhold inspection then the Court will order inspection of the documents.

(4)  If sufficient grounds are shown for challenging the correctness of the asserted right then the Court may order further evidence to be produced on oath or, if there is no other appropriate method of properly deciding whether the right to withhold inspection should be upheld, it may decide to inspect the documents.

(5)  If it decides to inspect then having inspected the documents it may invite representations.”

There is, however, a distinction between application to redaction of the rules which apply when a party is giving disclosure of documents in the ordinary course of litigation, and the separate question of the relevance of redaction in the process of construction of a document which a court has to embark upon when considering the meaning or legal effect of a document. Since the process of construction requires the document as a whole to be considered, the starting point must always be that the entire document should be made available to the court, and any redactions to it on grounds of irrelevance should either be forbidden or, if permitted at all, convincingly justified and kept to an absolute minimum. This situation, where the redacted document needs to be construed, is the precise issue raised in the recent Court of Appeal decision of Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907.

Hancock v Promontoria (Chestnut) Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 907

In Hancock, Promontoria Chestnut sought to recover the payment of an undisputed debt of approximately £4.09 million by serving a statutory demand. The debt represented the unsecured balance due under loans originally made to Mr Hancock by Clydesdale Bank PLC. Promontoria Chestnut claimed to have acquired title to the loans by assignment, and in the Statutory Demand, Promontoria Chestnut claimed to be entitled to all of the Bank’s rights by virtue of a deed of assignment.

Proceedings were brought by Mr Hancock to set aside the statutory demand. In them, Mr Hancock sought to challenge Promontoria Chestnut’s title to the debts on the basis that the copy of the Deed of Assignment, which Promontoria Chestnut had put in evidence, had been redacted heavily. Promontoria Chestnut’s solicitor had produced a witness statement explaining the reasons for the redactions, pointing in the main to the irrelevance of the materials redacted to the issue to be determined. However, Mr Hancock argued that the redacted deed of assignment was insufficient to prove Promontoria Chestnut’s title and its corresponding status as a lawful assignee. He said that part of the redactions related to the very clauses which the court was required to construe.

Notwithstanding the arguments of principle advanced, Mr Hancock was unable to produce any credible evidence casting doubt on the title of Promontoria Chestnut to the debts. The Court highlighted the fact that this was not a case where Promontoria Chestnut was required to prove its title to sue Mr Hancock and viewed in context, the redactions to the deed of assignment faded into relative insignificance. It was held that the unredacted parts of the deed were sufficient to show that title to Mr Hancock’s debts indeed had been assigned by the Bank to Promontoria Chestnut.

However, in reaching its decision the Court of Appeal considered the scope of the law on this issue of redaction more generally and the basis on which a party to proceedings could rely on redacted documents.

When Can Redacted Documents be Relied On?

It is settled law that a written contract has to be construed as a whole, in the light of admissible evidence of the relevant background facts (or surrounding circumstances) known to both parties at or before the time when the contract was made, but excluding evidence of prior negotiations. In Wood v Capita Insurance Services Ltd [2017] UKSC 24, [2017] AC 1173, per Lord Hodge JSC (with whose judgment the other members of the Supreme Court agreed) at [10], it was said:

“The court’s task is to ascertain the objective meaning of the language which the parties have chosen to express their agreement. It has long been accepted that this is not a literalist exercise focused solely on a parsing of the wording of the particular clause but that the court must consider the contract as a whole and, depending on the nature, formality and quality of drafting of the contract, give more or less weight to elements of the wider context in reaching its view as to that objective meaning.”

How can such a task can be properly undertaken by the court where part of the document has been redacted so that the court does not have before it the entirety of the relevant contract? Construction of a written document is a matter of law for the court, and questions of relevance require an evaluative judgment which it is for the court, not the solicitor of one of the parties, to perform. Thus, in Hancock , Mr Hancock argued that as a matter of principle, it was no answer to an objection to production of a redacted document only to say that the redactions were certified by an experienced solicitor as being irrelevant to the question which the court has to decide.

However, Mr Hancock’s submission that the court should simply refuse to engage with the construction of the deed of assignment in its redacted form because it is not in a position to construe it as a whole went too far. There could be no such rigid rule which admitted no exceptions. For example, there can be no reasonable objection to redaction, on the grounds of irrelevance, of the details of third party loan assets and title numbers in the schedule to the deed of assignment or the personal details of signatories and/or attesting witnesses. Those details were unlikely to have any bearing on the construction of the operative clauses of the Deed, particularly, in relation to the personal details of signatories and witnesses, where there was no issue in the case concerning its due execution.

However, even in such a clear case  a clear explanation must be provided of the nature and extent of the omissions, and the reasons for making them. Where it was obvious that the provisions in question would on any reasonable view be completely irrelevant to the issue of construction, and if the reasons for taking that view can be clearly and fully articulated by a solicitor acting for the party seeking the redaction, the court will be more inclined to accept that the redaction may be defensible.

In Hancock , it was held that, in general, irrelevance alone cannot be a proper ground for redaction of part of a document which the court is asked to construe, and there must be some additional feature, such as protection of privacy or confidentiality, relied upon to justify the redaction.

Conversely, however, it is seldom, if ever, that it would be appropriate for one party unilaterally to redact provisions in a contractual document which the court is being asked to construe, merely on grounds of confidentiality, where there is no irrelevance in the text redacted. Confidentiality alone cannot be a good reason for redacting an otherwise relevant provision in a contractual document which the court has to construe, and where there are other ways in which problems of that nature can be addressed, by allowing the unredacted document to be available to a ‘confidentiality ring’: the court and a limited number of the parties’ lawyers for example.

Thus, where a redacted document is to be construed, redactions, to be defensible, must be on the grounds of irrelevance and privacy, or irrelevance and confidentiality, not on one of irrelevance, privacy, or confidentiality alone.

The Emmanuel Decision

Just prior to the Court of Appeal decision in Hancock , the High Court (Marcus Smith J) had considered the issue of a redacted assignment of a mortgage in Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Nicholas Michael Emanuel and Nicola Jane Emanuel [2020] EWHC 104 (Ch) (“ Emanuel I ”) but in the different situation of the assignee mortgagee’s claim.

This case involved another company within the Promontoria group, Promontoria (Oak) Limited. Promontoria Oak brought possession proceedings against the defendants, Mr and Mrs Emanuel, owners of residential property in Cornwall charged as security for business loans to Clydesdale Bank. Promontoria sought possession and a money judgment as the assignee of the Bank, relying on a deed of assignment as evidence of the same.

Similar to the position in the Hancock case, in Emanuel, Promontoria put in evidence a significantly redacted version of the assignment, alleging that the redactions contained commercially sensitive material which had no bearing upon the existence and effectiveness of the assignment. Again as in the Hancock case, written notice of the assignment had been given to the Emanuels.

At first instance it was held that Promontoria Oak was entitled to possession of the property and a money judgment was given. The judge at first instance had made his decision with only a redacted version of the deed of assignment, plus some additional evidence, before him. This decision was appealed by the Emanuels on various grounds, including, as ground 1, that, as a matter of evidential rules, the judge had been wrong in exercising his discretion to admit the redacted version of the assignment into evidence. He could not be satisfied, as he had to be to allow the redacted version to be admitted, that the redacted passages were of confidential and irrelevant material because he could not be satisfied on the evidence that they were irrelevant.

This first ground of appeal was successful. The judge at first instance was wrong to admit the redacted assignment deed into evidence. He had failed to have regard to the implications of the evidence that was not before him, and ought to have seen the unredacted assignment. Marcus Smith J said that there was a significant probative difference between the primary evidence that was not before the court and the secondary evidence that was before the court. Even if the judge could conclude on the adduced evidence that the debt had been assigned, it did not follow that evidence not adduced, for example the redacted material, was irrelevant. The evidence not adduced could undermine the conclusion based on the adduced evidence. The judge had failed to pay proper regard to this important factor. 

This was in the context of some uncertainty in the correspondence with the Emanuels as to who, of various Promontoria entities, the assignee for this mortgage was to be. What was said in the correspondence did not sit easily with what the redacted assignment deed showed, and it was unclear that Promontoria Oak had had the mortgage assigned to it via a chain of assignments through the Promontoria entities. In saying that no other documents were needed to prove Promontoria Oaks title to commence proceedings he was simply wrong. He was thus wrong to conclude that the redacted material was irrelevant, and thus wrong to conclude that there was sufficient justification for redaction to allow the redacted assignment to be admitted into evidence. Promontoria Oak had not thus done enough to prove its claim.

What did the Court of Appeal in Hancock make of this earlier decision about redaction in Emanuel I? Since there was a pending application for permission to appeal in Emanuel I, it limited its comments. It did however make three observations.

First, it was noted that the High Court in Emanuel I had rejected grounds 2 and 3, that the redacted deed if admitted into evidence was not enough to prove Promontoria Oak’s title. Marcus Smith J concluded in Emnauel I  that the trial judge had clearly been entitled, on the redacted assignment adduced before him, to reach the conclusion that the mortgage and debt had been assigned to Promontoria Oak. Nevertheless, the appeal succeeded on ground 1, that there should have been no admission of the redacted assignment into evidence, as the trial judge’s decision to permit Promontoria Oak to rely on the redacted deed “was so flawed that it must be set aside”.

Secondly, there are significant differences between the facts in the Emanuel case and that of Hancock. Promontoria Oak had to establish its title to sue, as the claimant in Part 55 proceedings for possession and a money judgment. By contrast, Mr Hancock was seeking to set aside a statutory demand, and the burden was on him to show the existence of a substantial dispute. In addition, in Emanuel I, unlike in Hancock , there was little evidence from Promontoria Oak’s solicitors to explain the commercial background to the assignment, reasons for the redactions, and informing the court that he had inspected an unredacted version of the assignment so as to verify it’s irrelevance to the issues in dispute as there was in Hancock.

Finally, the parties to the litigation and the assignment relied upon in the two cases were of course different, though the Court of Appeal in Hancock noted that the redactions appeared to be rather similar.

In light of these key differences, the outcome of any Emmanuel I appeal is far from a forgone conclusion. Indeed the tone of the Court of Appeal’s commentary in Hancock does not suggest that those particular Justices of Appeal at least agreed with Marcus Smith J. It appears that they might happily have concluded that it was enough that the redacted assignment proved Promontoria Oak’s title. That does seem a likely more practical outcome. The Emanuels’ appeals do appear likely to be simply a delaying tactic.

Evidencing Assignment

A further aspect of the Hancock case related to the effect in law of the notice of the assignment from the Bank to Promontoria Chestnut, given to Mr Hancock. Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“ LPA 1925 ”) provides that an absolute assignment by writing of any debt or thing in action, of which express notice in writing is given to the debtor, is effectual in law to pass and transfer the legal right to the debt, all legal and other remedies and the power to give a good discharge without the concurrence of the assignor.

Thus, in Hancock , if the deed of assignment did assign the benefit of Mr Hancock’s debts to the Bank to Promontoria Chestnut, then the giving of express written notice of that assignment to Mr Hancock would transfer the legal title to the debts, together with all remedies for them. There was no evidence in that case that the Bank had ever disputed the validity of the assignment to Promontoria Chestnut or that Mr Hancock had ever asked the Bank to confirm that it no longer had any claims against him in respect of the debts. Mr Hancock would be fully protected by section 136 if he were to make payment to Promontoria Chestnut because the effect of s.136 was to prevent the Bank making a separate claim for the debt. Because of s.136, Promontoria Chestnut could give good receipt for any payments of his debt that Mr Hancock made. In the context of his application to set aside Promontoria Chestnut’s statutory demand, Mr Hancock’s assertion that the debt was disputed on substantial grounds had a correspondingly hollow ring.

The operation of s.136 LPA 1925, and the contrast of its role in assignment of a debt to the role of registration of an assignment of a charge in passing a mortgagee’s proprietary rights, has also been given recent consideration by the High Court in yet another piece of Promontoria litigation, Promontoria (Oak) Limited v Nicholas Michael Emanuel and Nicola Jane Emanuel [2020] EWHC 563 (Ch) (“ Emanuel II ”).

In a hearing of the order to be made given the Emmanuel I decision, Promontoria Oak successfully argued that the first instance orders for possession and a money judgment should be upheld, despite its inability to rely on the redacted deed of assignment, but on the alternative ground that it had title to sue and recover possession in its capacity as registered proprietor of the legal charge granted by the Emanuels over their property.

Marcus Smith J agreed. He held that as the registered proprietor of charge on property, Promontoria Oak had title and therefore standing to claim possession. The claim based on the proprietary interest succeeded simply because of the company's registration of its assigned mortgage pursuant to the Land Registration Act 2002 (“ LRA 2002 ”). This is simply the Paragon Finance Plc v Pender [2005] EWCA Civ 760 point: the right to possession goes with registration of the legal owner of a legal charge.

What about the money claim? Under s.114 LPA 1925 a deed purporting to transfer a mortgage carries with it a right to sue for the mortgage money or any unpaid part of it. Yet s.114 does not apply to registered land. One must thus make a distinction between the remedies of an assignee of a mortgagee’s rights in its guise as registered proprietor, and reliance on the deed of assignment. Thus Promontoria Oak could not rely on the deed of assignment and s.136 LPA 1925 because there was no evidence as to the deed in evidence before the court. However it could succeed on its possession claim as registered proprietor of the charge over the Emanuels’ land.

Moreover, Marcus Smith J concluded, though without much detail in reasoning, that ‘by analogy with section 114’ and pursuant to s.51 LRA 2002, Promontoria Oak had a right to claim any outstanding debt as the holder of the proprietary interest, even though it could not rely on the deed of assignment to show assignment of the right to the debt. This appears to be a strengthening of the position. Post Paragon Finance it appeared that the debt had to be assigned separately in cases of registered land if a money claim was to succeed. Nevertheless the minimal reasoning on this issue in Emanuel II should be noted. Marcus Smith J made reference to s.51 LR 2002. However, unlike s.114 LPA 1925, s.51 LRA 2002 does not explicitly refer to the transfer of the right to sue.

This judgment in Emanuel II , however, is also subject to an outstanding application for permission to appeal. If permission is given, it will be useful to see what the Court of Appeal makes of the long vexed question of assignment of the mortgage debt and whether it is a result of registeration as legal owner of a mortgage despite the lack of application of the useful machinery of s.114 of the 1925 Act. If there is no equivalent of s.114, then the registered proprietor of a mortgage, who took as assignee of the charge, can require the debt secured, plus interest and costs, to be paid to it as a condition of redemption, since that is inherent in a mortgage. Yet that assignee may have to account to the original lender, and, subject to the decision in Emanuel II , may not be able to sue for the debt. An odd position.

Pending any such appeal, Emanuel II is a useful case outlining the law under the 2002 Act and what registration as proprietor of a charge necessarily carries with it. The result of the findings made by the court was that Promontoria Oak effectively sidestepped the issues concerning its redacted documents and achieved its aims via a different route.

The Practicalities

What evidence to adduce?

When a assignee of a mortgage is claiming possession, or the other clear proprietary remedies, sale or the appointment of a receiver, it need only plead its registered title to the charge and that is sufficient to establish its right. That has long been the case, since the decision in Paragon Finance v Pender . That is so even if its registration is a mistake, unless and until that registration is unwound by a claim for rectification of the Land Register.

What if a claim for a money judgment is sought? Though the common current practice is always to seek a money judgment with a possession claim, since the registered mortgagee is entitled to the debt, interest and costs, out of the proceeds of its sale, a money judgment might only be needed if a shortfall is feared, or clarity as to what is owed is sought before sale.

However, if a money judgment is sought, at present at least, pending any appeal of Emanuel II , registration as mortgagee it appears should suffice. By s.51 of the LRA 2002, any assignee once registered is entitled to make a claim for the debt.

When to redact?

What if an assignment of a mortgage is to be produced, for example if the mortgage is not registered, or if the Emanuel II decision is overturned? What should practice be on redaction?

Where documents are redacted it is important for the other side to be able to understand the basis for it, and for the disclosing party to provide an explanation. A witness statement ought to be produced explaining the background to the redacted document, reasons for the redactions and informing the court that the complete version had inspected so as to verify it’s irrelevance to the issues in dispute. It should be prepared in quite some detail, and redactions kept to a minimum. Thus, for example, in Hancock the redactions were said to be far more extensive than needed and the evidence provided by Promontoria Chestnut’s solicitor would have been of greater assistance to the court if he had condescended to greater detail about the specific reasons for particular redactions.

As for the redactions themselves, where part of a document is irrelevant but not confidential, then it might be simpler to disclose it in its entirety. Where the issue is one of confidentiality however, then the issue of redaction arises. If the document can be separated into distinct parts, where one is confidential and the other isn’t, it may be a straightforward process. For example, if a document attaches board minutes or a schedule of third-party transactions which are irrelevant to the litigation.

In some cases there will be real issues about the admissibility of a redacted version. In such cases, another approach will be needed, for example the use of a confidentiality ring within which the document could be made available in its unredacted form to the court and/or a limited number of lawyers on each side may offer a practical solution. Another approach might be for the parties to agree for the judge alone to see the document in its unredacted form.

Cecily Crampin

Tricia hemans.

2 September 2020

• Practice Areas
• Press Comments
• International Work
• Our Practice

• Client Privacy Notice
• Employment Applicant Privacy Notice
• Equality And Diversity Statistics
• Mini-Pupillage Privacy Notice
• Provision of Services Regulations 2009
• Pupillage Privacy Notice
• Tenancy Application Privacy Notice
• Terms of business
• Internal Login

Barristers regulated by The Bar Standards Board © 2024 Falcon Chambers Site by Sears Davies   FalconChambers1

20 .         Assignment of debts and choses in action

What is an Assignment of Debt?

By Vanessa Swain Senior Lawyer

Updated on February 22, 2023 Reading time: 5 minutes

This article meets our strict editorial principles. Our lawyers, experienced writers and legally trained editorial team put every effort into ensuring the information published on our website is accurate. We encourage you to seek independent legal advice. Learn more .

Perfecting Assignment

• Enforcing an Assigned Debt 

Recovery of an Assigned Debt

• Other Considerations 

Key Takeaways

Frequently asked questions.

I t is common for creditors, such as banks and other financiers, to assign their debt to a third party. Usually, an assig nment of debt is done in an effort to minimise the costs of recovery where a debtor has been delinquent for some time. This article looks at:

• what it means to ‘assign a debt’;
• the legal requirements to perfecting an assignment; and
• common problems with enforcing an assigned debt. 

Whether you’re a small business owner or the Chief Financial Officer of an ASX-listed company, one fact remains: your customers need to pay you.

This manual aims to help business owners, financial controllers and credit managers best manage and recover their debt.

An assignment of debt, in simple terms, is an agreement that transfers a debt owed to one entity, to another. A creditor does not need the consent of the debtor to assign a debt.

Once a debt is properly assigned, all rights and responsibilities of the original creditor (the assignor ) transfer to the new owner (the assignee ). Once an assignment of debt has been perfected, the assignee can collect the full amount of the debt owed . This includes interest recoverable under the original contract, as if they were the original creditor. A debtor is still responsible for paying the outstanding debt after an assignment. However, now, the debt or must pay the debt to the assignee rather than the original creditor.

Purchasing debt can be a lucrative business. Creditors will generally sell debt at a loss, for example, 20c for each dollar owed. Although, the amount paid will vary depending on factors such as the age of the debt and the likelihood of recovery. This can be a tax write off for the assignor, while the assignee can take steps to recover 100% of the debt owed. 

In New South Wales, the requirements for a legally binding assignment of debt are set out in the Conveyancing Act :

• the assignment must be in writing. You do this in the form of a deed (deed of assignment) and both the assignor and assignee sign it; and
• the assignor must provide notice to the debtor. The requirement for notice must be express and must be in writing. The assignor must notify the debtor advising them of the debt’ s assign ment and to who it has been assigned. The assignee will send a separate notice to the debtor, putting them on notice that the debt is due and payable. They will also provide them with the necessary information to make payment. 

The assignor must send the notices to the debtor’s last known address.  

Debtor as a Joined Party

In some circumstances, a debtor will be joined as a party to the deed of assignment . There can be a great benefit in this approach . This is because the debtor can provide warranties that the debt is owed and has clear notice of the assignment. However, it is not always practical to do so for a few reasons:

• a debtor may not be on speaking terms with the assignor; 
• a debtor may not be prepared to co-operate or provide appropriate warranties; and
• the assignor or the assignee may not want the debtor to be made aware of the sale price . This occurs particularly where the sale price is at a significant discount.

If the debtor is not a party to the deed of assignment, proper notice of the assignment must be provided.  

An assignment of debt that has not been properly perfected will not constitute a legal debt owing to the assignee. Rather, the legal right to recover the debt will remain with the assignor. Only an equitable interest in the debt will transfer to the assignee.  

Enforcing an Assigned Debt 

After validly assigning a debt (in writing and notice has been provided to the debtor’s last known place of residence), the assignee is entitled to take any legal steps available to them to recover the outstanding debt. These recovery options include:

• commencing court proceedings;
• obtaining a judgment; and 
• enforcement of that judgment.

Suppose court proceedings have been commenced or judgment already entered in favour of the assignor. In that case, the assignee must take steps to have the proceedings or judgment formally changed into the assignee’s name.  

In our experience, recovery of an assigned debt can be problematic because:  

• debtors often do not understand the concept of debt assignment and may not be aware that their credit contract contains an assignment of debt clause;
• disputes can arise as to whether a lawful assignment of debt has arisen. A debtor may claim that the assignor did not provide them with the requisite notice of the assignment, or in some cases, a contract will specifically exclude the creditor from legally assigning a debt;
• proper records of the notice of assignment provided to the debtor must be maintained. If proper records have not been kept, it may be difficult to prove that notice has been properly given, which may invalidate the legal assignment; and
• the debtor has the right to make an offsetting claim in defence to any recovery action taken by the assignee. A debtor may raise an offsetting claim which has arisen out of a previous arrangement with the assignor (which the assignee may not be aware of). For example, the debtor may have entered into an agreement with the assignor whereby the assignor agreed to accept a lesser amount of the debt owed by way of settlement. Because the assignee acquires the same rights and obligations of the assignor, the terms of that previous settlement agreement will bind the assignee. The court may find that there is no debt owing by the debtor. In this case, the assignee will have been assigned nothing of value. 

Other Considerations 

When assigning a debt, it is essential that the assignee, in particular, considers relevant statutory limitation periods for commencing proceedings or enforcing a judgment debt . In New South Wales, the time limit:

• to file legal proceedings to recover debts is six years from the date of last payment or when the debtor admitted in writing that they owed the debt; and
• for enforcing a judgment debt is 12 years from the date of judgment.

An assignment of a debt does not extend these limitation periods.  

While there can be benefits to both the assignor and the assignee, an assignment of debt will be unenforceable if done incorrectly. Therefore, if you are considering assigning or being assigned a debt, it is important to seek legal advice. If you need help with drafting or reviewing a deed of assignment or wish to recover a debt that has been assigned to you, contact LegalVision’s debt recovery lawyers on 1300 544 755 or fill out the form on this page.  

An assignment of debt is an agreement that transfers a debt owed to one entity, to another. A creditor does not need the consent of the debtor to assign a debt.

Once the assignee has validly assigned a debt, they are entitled to take any legal steps available to them to recover the outstanding debt. This includes commencing court proceedings, obtaining a judgment and enforcement of that judgment.

We appreciate your feedback – your submission has been successfully received.

Register for our free webinars

Ai in business: mastering compliance and mitigating risks, preventing sexual and gender-based harassment: your whs legal duties, protecting your retail business: understanding your legal obligations, demystifying startup funding: strategies for growth, contact us now.

Fill out the form and we will contact you within one business day

Related articles

Dealing With Proceedings in the Small Claims Division of the NSW Local Court

What Are the Pros and Cons of a Writ for Levy of Property? 

I’m a Judgment Debtor. What are the Next Steps?

How Can I Enforce a Judgment Debt in New South Wales?

We’re an award-winning law firm

2023 Fast Firms - Australasian Lawyer

2022 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards

2021 Law Firm of the Year - Australasian Law Awards

2020 Excellence in Technology & Innovation Finalist - Australasian Law Awards

2020 Employer of Choice Winner - Australasian Lawyer

• Construction
• Dispute Resolution
• Financial Crime
• Insurance & Reinsurance
• Maritime & Commercial
• Tax & Finance
• Law Reports
• Books and Looseleafs
• News and Journals
• All Publications
• Legislation
• Special Features
• Home / Publications / Lloyd's Law Reports / 2017 / 2 / Document

Lloyd's Law Reports

• Publication Details
• Back to Search Results
• Remove Highlight Show Highlight

DAINFORD NAVIGATION INC v PDVSA PETROLEO SA (THE “MOSCOW STARS”)

[2017] 2 lloyd's rep. 409, queen's bench division(commercial court), before mr justice males.

Arbitration – Interim relief – Owners bringing arbitration proceedings against time charterers – Owners applying to High Court for order of sale of cargo – Whether cargo was “the subject of” the arbitration proceedings – Whether sale should be ordered – Arbitration Act 1996, section 44(2)(d).

The rest of this document is only available to i-law.com online subscribers.

If you are already a subscriber, click Log In button.

• Avalon Statement of Purpose
• Accessibility at Yale
• Yale Law Library
• University Library
• Yale Law School
• Search Morris
• Search Orbis

Study record managers: refer to the Data Element Definitions if submitting registration or results information.

Search for terms

• Advanced Search
• See Studies by Topic
• See Studies on Map
• How to Search
• How to Use Search Results
• How to Find Results of Studies
• How to Read a Study Record

• Learn About Studies
• Other Sites About Studies
• Glossary of Common Site Terms

• Submit Studies to ClinicalTrials.gov PRS
• Why Should I Register and Submit Results?
• FDAAA 801 and the Final Rule
• How to Apply for a PRS Account
• How to Register Your Study
• How to Edit Your Study Record
• How to Submit Your Results
• Frequently Asked Questions
• Support Materials
• Training Materials

• Selected Publications
• Clinical Alerts and Advisories
• Trends, Charts, and Maps
• Downloading Content for Analysis

• ClinicalTrials.gov Background
• About the Results Database
• History, Policies, and Laws
• ClinicalTrials.gov Modernization
• Media/Press Resources
• Linking to This Site
• Terms and Conditions
• Search Results
• Study Record Detail

Double-blind, Placebo-controlled, Randomized Study of the Tolerability, Safety and Immunogenicity of an Inactivated Whole Virion Concentrated Purified Vaccine (CoviVac) Against Covid-19 of Children at the Age of 12-17 Years Inclusive"

• Study Details
• Tabular View
• No Results Posted

Recruitment of volunteers will be competitive. A maximum of 450 children aged 12 to 17 years inclusive will be screened in the study, of which it is planned to include and randomize 300 children who meet the criteria for inclusion in the study and do not have non-inclusion criteria, data on which will be used for subsequent safety and immunogenicity analysis.

Group 1 - 150 volunteers who will be vaccinated with the Nobivac vaccine twice with an interval of 21 days intramuscularly.

Group 2 - 150 volunteers who will receive a placebo twice with an interval of 21 days intramuscularly.

In case of withdrawal of volunteers from the study, their replacement is not provided.

Inclusion Criteria:

• Volunteers must meet the following inclusion criteria:

Type of participants • Healthy volunteers.

Age at the time of signing the Informed Consent

• from 12 to 17 years inclusive (12 years 0 months 0 days - 17 years 11 months 30 days).

Paul • Male or female.

Reproductive characteristics

• For girls with a history of mensis - a negative pregnancy test and consent to adhere to adequate methods of contraception (use of contraceptives within a month after the second vaccination). Girls should use methods of contraception with a reliability of more than 90% (cervical caps with spermicide, diaphragms with spermicide, condoms, intrauterine spirals).
• For young men capable of conception - consent to adhere to adequate methods of contraception (use of contraceptives within a month after the second vaccination). Young men and their sexual partners should use methods of contraception with a reliability of more than 90% (cervical caps with spermicide, diaphragms with spermicide, condoms, intrauterine spirals).

Research procedures

• Written Informed consent of a volunteer (14 years and older) and one of the parents to participate in a clinical trial.
• Volunteers who are able to fulfill Protocol requirements (i.e. answer phone calls, fill out a Self-observation Diary, come to control visits).

Non-inclusion criteria:

• Volunteers cannot be included in the study if any of the following criteria are present:

SARS-CoV-2 infection

• A case of established COVID-19 disease confirmed by PCR and/or ELISA in the last 6 months.
• History of contacts with confirmed or suspected cases of SARS-CoV-2 infection within 14 days prior to vaccination.
• Positive IgM or IgG to SARS-CoV-2 detected on Screening.
• Positive PCR test for SARS-CoV-2 at Screening / before vaccination.

Diseases or medical conditions

• Serious post-vaccination reaction (temperature above 40 C, hyperemia or edema more than 8 cm in diameter) or complication (collapse or shock-like condition that developed within 48 hours after vaccination; convulsions, accompanied or not accompanied by a feverish state) to any previous vaccination.
• Burdened allergic history (anaphylactic shock, Quincke's edema, polymorphic exudative eczema, serum sickness in the anamnesis, hypersensitivity or allergic reactions to the introduction of any vaccines in the anamnesis, known allergic reactions to vaccine components, etc.).
• Guillain-Barre syndrome (acute polyradiculitis) in the anamnesis.
• The axillary temperature at the time of vaccination is more than 37.0 ° C.
• Positive blood test for HIV, syphilis, hepatitis B/C.
• Acute infectious diseases (recovery earl

Exclusion Criteria:

- • Withdrawal of Informed consent by a volunteer and/or a parent of a volunteer;

• The volunteer was included in violation of the inclusion/non-inclusion criteria of the Protocol;
• Availability of inclusion/non-inclusion criteria before vaccination;
• Any condition of a volunteer that requires, in the reasoned opinion of a medical researcher, the withdrawal of a volunteer from the study;
• The established fact of pregnancy before the second vaccination;
• Taking unauthorized medications (see section 6.2);
• The volunteer's incompetence with the study procedures;
• The volunteer refuses to cooperate or is undisciplined (for example, failure to attend a scheduled visit without warning the researcher and/or loss of communication with the volunteer), or dropped out of observation;
• For administrative reasons (termination of the study by the Sponsor or regulatory authorities), as well as in case of gross violations of the protocol that may affect the results of the study.
• For Patients and Families
• For Researchers
• For Study Record Managers
• Customer Support
• Accessibility
• Viewers and Players
• Freedom of Information Act
• HHS Vulnerability Disclosure
• U.S. National Library of Medicine
• U.S. National Institutes of Health
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services