partial assignment under english law

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

A decade of diversity disclosure in Canada

The Canadian securities regulators have published their tenth and likely final report on the status of women on boards and in executive officer positions in TSX-listed companies.

Canada | October 31, 2024

AI-adoption in Australia under the privacy spotlight

AI-adoption must now be on every board room and executive team’s agenda as an emerging area of risk and regulatory focus.

Australia | October 30, 2024

Standing firm on an enforceable termination clause

A recent Ontario decision reminds us that (1) it is possible to draft an enforceable termination clause, and (2) responding to a wrongful dismissal claim does not have to be a lengthy, costly endeavour – some claims can be resolved quickly using procedural tools.

Canada | October 29, 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

• 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

• Contact Support
• Returning Customer?
• Sign in to your account
• Contact support
• New Zealand
• South Africa

Novation and assignment

Changing the parties bound to a contract

What is novation, is novation a new contract, what is a deed of novation, why novation can be difficult, when do you use an assignment agreement to transfer a debt or obligation, transfer of a debt, transfer of service contracts.

Novation and assignment are ways for someone to transfer their interest in a contract to someone else.

Whilst the difference between assignment and novation is relatively small, it is an essential one. Assigning when you should novate could leave you in a position of being liable for your original contract when the other party is not liable to perform their obligations.

In contract law the principle of privity of contract means that only the parties to a contract have the obligation to fulfill it and the right to enforce it. Statute law has created a few exceptions but they apply rarely.

The legal concepts of novation and assignment have been developed to overcome the restrictions imposed by the doctrine.

Novation is a mechanism where one party transfers all its obligations and rights under a contract to a third party, with the consent of their original counter-party.

Novation in practice

Let us suppose Michael buys a car from Peter, owing him £5,000 as part of the sale price until Peter obtains a certifcate of authenticity.

Michael then sells the car to Fred under the same terms. Michael wants out, but has obligations to both parties.

Michael persuades Peter and Fred to enter into a novation agreement, signed by all three of them, whereby Fred takes over Michael’s obligations to Peter and Fred now deals with Peter in Michael’s place.

Other examples

The seller of a business transfers the contracts with their customers and suppliers to the buyer. A novation process transfers each contract by the mutual agreement of all three parties.

A design and build contractor in the construction industry transfers a construction contract to a new, substitute contractor. A novation agreement is necessary.

A novation agreement is a new contract that 'extinguishes' the old one.

Because it is a new contract, there can be new terms within it, giving additional rights and obligations.

There are times when and why you should use a deed explains exactly when you need to use one. Novation is not among them.

A Deed of Novation is a relic from long ago when lawyers were even more inclined to cloak their knowledge in obscurity.

One of the main purposes in using the deed format is that it provides the necessity for an unconnected witness to sign the document. So it is that much more difficult for one of the parties to say it was forged or signed a year later than the date shown.

But in a novation, there are at least three parties by definition; three parties who are most unlikely to be connected and each of whom has their separate interest. So you can be pretty sure the agreement has not been tampered with. A witness cannot improve on that. So you do not need a deed.

Another reason to use a deed could be when there is no 'consideration', that is when one of the original contracting parties receives no benefit - monetary or otherwise - in return fot the novation. However, in commercial circumstances you could nearly always argue that there is an advantage to each of the parties. The extinction of the old contract or subjectively more favourable terms within the new contract would both count as fair consideration.

Do you need a deed of novation for your situation? The answer is usually no, as an agreement is fine.

The exception to the rule is that if the original contract was signed as a deed, you need to use a deed to novate it. Real property transaction are by deed. That includes a consent to assign a lease, which has three parties. There are special reasons for that.

There are other examples too, which are more obscure.

When a contract is novated, the other (original) contracting party must be left in the same position as they were in prior to the novation being made.

Novation requires the agreement of all three parties. While obtaining the agreement of the transferor and transferee is easy, obtaining the agreement of the other original party can be more difficult:

The other original party may not understand the benefit to them of having the original contract novated and require extra information about the process that is time consuming to provide.

They may need extra assurance to be persuaded that they won’t be worse off as a result of the novation (especially common where there is a transfer of service contracts between suppliers).

It is possible that they could play up to delay the transfer and squeeze extra concessions from you.

The only way to transfer your rights or obligations is by an agreement signed by all three parties.

But what happens if you are a service provider selling your business with tens of thousands of customers? You can hardly ask every one of them to sign up to their own separate novation.

In practice, a well drawn original agreement will contain a provision which permits the service provider to assign (transfer its contract) without the permission of the customer.

But what happens if it does not?

In practice what happens is that the buyer 'takes a flyer'. The deal is done in the hope that the customers stay with the new owner.

Maybe the buyer obtains an indemnity from the seller to cover their loss if many leave. Maybe the buyer will write to the customers to encourage them to stay. Maybe the customers simply make the next payment and thereby confirm acceptance in law.

In each of those cases, the acquirer will be safe because the customers remain (or become) bound to the terms of the original contract.

Net Lawman offers an assignment agreement to cover that exact situation, together with a draft letter of the sort that might convince customers to stay with the new owner.

The other situation in which assignment is used is where the new party trusts the original party assigning the contract. For example, a subsidiary company may assign contractual obligations to a parent company confident that the parent will uphold the contract.

A construction company is a subsidary in a group. It is working in partnership with another business on several projects to build houses. The other business is a minor partner in the deal. The partnership has run out of money and the smaller partner is unable to inject any more funds. The parent business is unwilling to have its subsidiary fund the remainder of the projects by itself.

A solution may be for the parent to pay both its subsidiary and the third party for the construction contracts to be assigned to it (in other words, buy the contractual rights from the partnership). The assignment provisions would give the parent the obligation to finish the project, which it may be able to do without the third party.

Assignment transfers benefits only

Even if the assignee promises to take on the liability of the assignor to the third parties, the assignor remains personally liable if they fail to do so. An obligation to a third party cannot be assigned without their consent.

When assignment can invalidate your contract

Terms in an original contract can restrict or prohibit assignments. This is particularly common in construction contracts but can apply in any agreement. If you attempt to assign a contract that cannot be assigned, you risk invalidating the original contract.

Personal obligations and assignment

Be particularly careful of an assignment if your obligations can only be performed personally. A good example would be sale of a hair dressing business. Quite apart from the risk of the clients leaving, the actual forward appointments could be interpreted as contracts with the seller, even though they would have no way to fulfill them because they have sold the business.

Buying the right document

Very generally, if you are unsure whether you should assign or novate, we recommend that you novate and obtain consent of all parties. We offer a number of novation and assignment agreement templates for different situations.

For example: You borrow from a lender and you later want to transfer the debt to someone else (maybe a friend, a business partner or a the buyer of your business) so that they become liable to repay the lender instead of you. In this situation you should use an agreement that novates the debt .

This is a common consideration when a business is sold and outstanding debts of the business are transferred to the new owner (perhaps loans of money but maybe also loans of goods for sale).

Alternatively, you could novate in order to change who should pay back a personal loan between individuals.

Transfer of a right to receive the repayment of a debt

For example: You make a loan to someone (it could be money or goods) and later you want to change who receives the repayment (an agreement to change who the creditor is ).

The transaction might relate to the sale of a business where the buyer takes on the assets of the seller (the loans to other parties), or when factoring debt.

For example: You provide a service to someone and you want to transfer the obligation of providing that service to another person or company.

Again, a common use for a service contract novation agreement is where a business is sold and the buyer takes on the service contracts of the seller. The service could be in any industry, from a fixed period gardening contract to an on-going IT or website maintenance. Novation changes who is providing the service.

Transfer of an architectural or building contract

For example: You buy a building or property development that is still under construction and you want the existing contractor to continue work despite the original contract being between the contractor and the seller.

In this situation you should use a novation agreement for a building contract .

Our standard assignment agreement can be used for most assignments (exceptions given below). It is not specific to circumstances.

Assignment of a business lease

If you wish to transfer a commercial property lease to another business tenant during the fixed term, Net Lawman offers an agreement to assign a lease .

We have an article specifically about assigning a business lease that may be useful further reading.

It is not advisable to assign a residential tenancy agreement. We would suggest that you cancel the original agreement and draw up a new agreement with the new tenants.

Assignment of copyright

We have  number of assignment agreements for intellectual property rights .

They are effectively sale or transfer agreements where some rights are retained by the seller (such as to buyback the assigned work, or for the work only to be used in certain locations).

They relate to IP in media (such as a film or a music score) and to inventions.

Assignment of a life insurance policy or endowment policy

These agreements allows you to transfer the rights to receive payments from a life insurance policy or endowment policy. We offer both a deed of assignment of a policy on separation or divorce and a deed of assignment to gift or sell the policy to someone else .

Assignment and collateral warranties in the construction industry

Probably the most common use of assignment in the construction industry today is in relation to collateral warranties.

The collateral warranties given by consultants, contractors and sub-contractors in construction contracts are often assigned to subsequent owners or leases. Assignment can do no more than transfer rights available to the assignor. It is not capable of creating new rights and obligations in favour of an assignee.

So while the client can, in theory, assign the right to have a building adequately designed, it is unclear what right would be transferred to sue for damages in the event of breach. If the developer (who would usually be the assignor) has sold the building or created a full-repairing lease, then their right would be to nominal damages only. This is one situation where you should definitely use a deed of novation.