Stamp and Others v CLH Mortgages and Others

Hearing date: 26 April 2024

Approved Judgment

This judgment was handed down remotely at 10.30am on 9 May 2024 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and by release to the National Archives (see eg https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2022/1169.html).

These three claims (‘the claims’) and the applications arising in them were considered together at a hearing at which they were understood to represent a much larger group of claims, (‘the large group of claims’), now numbering over two hundred, which are substantially the same and in many instances are identical in the arguments advanced and the language used to make them. Some, mostly those first to emerge, have been struck out by the Court of its own motion. The remainder have been stayed pending the provision of information that the Court sought by order on 1 December 2023 in four specific cases. That information has not been forthcoming and so all claims remain stayed pending the hearing of the three applications arising in the present three cases. These applications are representative of similar applications to set aside orders previously made to strike out claims, or for them to be stayed.

The outcome of the applications now before the Court is that all three claims are to be struck out. This outcome is not just a justification of the Defendants, it is also a mercy to Claimants who appear to have invested much in claims that are founded upon false learning and false hope. No one wants to be taken in by such things any longer than is really necessary. There are often understandable reasons why people are taken in, particularly where their circumstances are difficult and the temptation exists to seek a prize or windfall which others in better circumstances may not be distracted by. But once a deceit is exposed, however disagreeable this may be, it is better to shake dust from feet and move on. In these claims, and the far greater number they represent, the prize has appeared to be to recover compensation equal to the value of a mortgage, and better still the value of the property against which it is secured, as a consequence of a mortgage lender transferring the mortgage debt owed, to them, to a third party. It is to all intents and purposes a ‘get-rich-quick’ scheme. Only it is nothing of the sort because the arguments that it relies upon, and which have clearly been made available to people to widely adopt, are so misconceived as to be fundamentally wrong. This deceit is all the uglier because the material that forms the building blocks of the claims (and the large group of claims) is a nonsensical and harmful mix of legal words, terms, maxims, extracts and statutes which are designed to look and sound good, at least to some. But they stand only as an approximation of a claim in law, a parody of the real thing. This is not only harmful to those finding themselves relying upon this material but, given the scale of that reliance and the volume of cases generated, it unjustifiably draws heavily upon the resources of the Court. Because these resources are publicly funded they are finite and need to be properly managed so that they are available to all users of the Court, and in fair measure.

At the hearing two of the Claimants were present and a third, Mr Stamp, was not, having emailed the Court on 23 April 2024 to confirm that he was beyond the seas and that he relied upon the documents he had already delivered to the Court. Those present appeared in person and it is understood that there are no solicitors on record for any Claimant in any of the two hundred or more cases of this sort. This fact tells its own story as will be seen. Reasons were given for striking out all three claims with costs being awarded against the Claimants as not unreasonably sought by Defendants who have been put to task and expense by them. None the less a written judgment was also requested, and for good reason as will be apparent, if it is not already. The claims are an abuse of the Court on a number of levels.

The Claims

Mr Stamp's claim was issued on 6 July 2023. His wish is to receive damages of around £265,000 with interest at 8%.

The claim form is accompanied by separate particulars of claim as well as a witness statement from the Claimant the lucidity of which is rarely matched amongst the other documents that are relied upon. Mr Stamp complains that the mortgage he agreed with the Defendant, CHL, was ‘miss- sold’ to him because CHL went on to assign or transfer its interest in the mortgage to a third party, a so- called (in banking parlance) Special Purchase Vehicle (the ‘SPV’). By this Mr Stamp alleges CHL sought unjust enrichment although no particulars of such, in law or fact, are given. Mr Stamp refers to this activity by CHL as “legal manoeuvres” which is a description we see repeated in other claims. He maintains that the result is that he now has no contract with CHL but only a contract with the SPV. He contends the assignment of the mortgage to have been a ‘true sale’ of the mortgage and to have been unlawfully concealed by CHL, for tax-avoidance purposes, from both himself as borrower and HM Land Registry. By this concealment “the world remains ignorant of these events” is how Mr Stamp describes this (a description relied upon by all three claimants) and CHL are said to be in breach of section 33 of the Land Registration Act 1925.

It is further alleged that CHL's conduct has been a “violation of fundamental constitutional rights”. This assertion relies upon the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right 1628, the Treaty of Ripon 1640, Habeus Corpus Act 1679, the Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Treason Act 1795, the Judicature Act 1873, and on to the Human Rights Act 1998, the Equality Act 2010, The European Union Act 2018 and concludes with the flourish Nemo me impune lacessit in a witting, or unwitting, nod to the fearsome history of service proudly borne by the Scots Guards. It is not explained how this long list establishes a violation of Mr Stamp's rights under the mortgage he agreed with CHL. It is difficult to see how mention of so many elderly statutes was intended to persuade the Court to find in Mr Stamp's favour. It is more likely that it was intended to sound credible and to encourage others to rely upon material like it in making a similar claim. If this is so, then the intention is a deceitful one.

Mr Whitworth's claim was issued on 13 September 2023. His wish is to receive damages of around £712,000.

The claim was accompanied by Particulars of Claim and supported by a statement that included a statement of truth signed by Mr Whitworth (albeit not in compliance with CPR 22PD.2). Much of the claim form is identical to that presented by Mr Stamp. The Particulars complain of a “true sale of my mortgage” by the Defendant, Lloyds Bank (‘Lloyds’) by which is meant an assignment of the mortgage by Lloyds, to a Special Purpose Vehicle, a ‘securitisation’ which Mr Whitworth says was concealed from him; and so “the world remains ignorant of these events”. It is alleged that following these “legal manoeuvres” Mr Whitworth, “never had and no longer has”, a contract with Lloyds. It is contended therefore that Mr Whitworth's mortgage was thereby “mis-sold” to him and Lloyds proceeded to unjust enrichment, and that he is a victim of an unlawful act with Lloyds having violated his “fundamental constitutional rights”. Like Mr Stamp, Mr Whitworth pins his hopes on the Magna Carta, the Petition of Right 1628, the Treaty of Ripon 1640, Coronation Oath Act 1688, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Settlement 1701, the Treason Act 1795, the Judicature Act 1873, and so on to the Human Rights Act 1998. The Defendant points out that there is no obvious connection between this long list of legislation and any dispute between Mr Whitworth and Lloyds.

The third claim is that of Mr Le Clere. It was issued on 7 December 2023 and accompanied by Particulars of Claim running to 10 pages with a statement of truth. He too complains of the, now familiar, “legal manoeuvres” by the Defendant, the Bank of Scotland (‘BoS’), whereby assignments of the mortgage took place to a third party, as part of a securitisation of the debt owed to the bank. It is contended that these assignments were deliberately concealed from Mr Le Clere and HM Land Registry. It is alleged that the assignments that took place were illegal, fraudulent and criminal, or at least that they might have been. But Mr Le Clere, who is clearly a man not short of curiosity or ability, does have to accept that he does not actually know these things to be true. He also accepts that in this regard his claim is a speculative one. He says that he has asked to see the contract, and deed of assignment and indemnity insurance that relate to his mortgage and that he has not received the full provision of documents from the Defendant that he was expecting and that would put his mind to rest. All of this he characterises as a violation of his fundamental constitutional rights and as a failure by BoS to exercise its public duty, or function, thereby “bringing the administration...