Gloria Lewis v "The West Brom"
[2023] EWHC 1361 (KB)
Iain Clifford Stamp & Ors v Capital Home Loans Limited T/A CHL Mortgages & Ors
9 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1092 (KB)
High Court
Three people sued their banks over mortgages, claiming they were tricked. The judge threw out their cases because their arguments were nonsense, and they possibly cheated the court system. The judge warned others not to try the same thing.
Key Facts
- •Three mortgage-related claims (Stamp, Whitworth, Le Clere) were heard together, representing over 200 similar claims.
- •Claimants alleged mortgage 'mis-selling' due to assignment of mortgage debt to third parties (SPVs), claiming unjust enrichment and violation of constitutional rights.
- •Claimants relied on a nonsensical mix of legal terms, maxims, and statutes, including numerous historical acts, to support their claims.
- •Claimants largely acted in person and appeared to have received assistance from Matrix Freedom, an organization with alleged links to the Freemen on the Land movement.
- •Many claimants benefitted from waived court fees.
- •Defendants argued the claims were fundamentally flawed, incoherent, and an abuse of court process.
Legal Principles
CPR 3.4(2): Striking out claims that disclose no reasonable grounds or are an abuse of process.
CPR 3.4(2)
Land Registration Act 2002, section 27 (and section 33 of the 1925 Act): Assignment of equitable interest in a mortgage is not a registrable event; legal title remains with the registered proprietor.
Land Registration Act 2002, s. 27; Land Registration Act 1925, s. 33
Paragon Finance PLC v Pender: Registered proprietor of a mortgage retains legal ownership as long as registered.
Paragon Finance PLC v Pender [2005] 1 WLR 3412
Land Registration Act 2002, section 58: The register of title is conclusive as to the proprietor of a registered legal estate.
Land Registration Act 2002, s. 58
Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel: Assignment of equitable interest has procedural consequences only, not a basis for damages claims.
Promontoria (Oak) Ltd v Emanuel [2022] 1 WLR 2004
Inherent jurisdiction of the court to prevent abuse of process.
Inherent jurisdiction of the court
Contempt of court: conducting litigation where no right exists.
Contempt of court
CPR 1.3: Parties should assist the court in the administration of justice.
CPR 1.3
Outcomes
All three claims were struck out.
Claims were incoherent, disclosed no reasonable grounds, were an abuse of process, and relied on fundamentally flawed legal arguments.
Costs awarded against the Claimants.
Defendants incurred expense due to the frivolous claims.
Further orders will be made in the larger group of similar claims.
The judgment sets a precedent for dealing with the remaining claims.
Potential for contempt of court proceedings.
Suspected involvement of Matrix Freedom in coordinating the claims; potential criminal conduct.