MR ROWAN PENNINGTON-BENTON and MR ADAM RILEY (instructed by Pinder Reaux & Associates Ltd) for the First Defendant
HHJ JOHNS KC:
Introduction and brief background
1. This is my judgment following a disposal hearing for the assessment of sums due to Cheval Legal Limited (Cheval) on its counterclaim against Momenta Holdings (PPI) Limited (Momenta), judgment in default having been entered in favour of Cheval on its counterclaim.
2. The counterclaim was for breach of contractual duties, including as to skill and care, owed by Momenta in conducting claims known as “Plevin” claims on behalf of Cheval, an entity licensed to conduct litigation. A contractual indemnity was also relied on by Cheval.
3. These Plevin claims related to allegedly mis-sold payment protection insurance and took their name from the Supreme Court decision Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd [2014] UKSC 61 in which it was held that non-disclosure of large commissions rendered the consumer-creditor relationship unfair.
4. Cheval took on the Plevin claimants as clients under damages-based agreements. It outsourced the handling of the claims to Momenta under two outsourcing agreements made between the two parties and dated 26 August 2020 and 1 January 2022, the later replacing the earlier. Cheval was also party to a funding agreement dated 4 August 2020 with Spectralegal Finance 3 DAC (Spectra). Spectra financed the bringing of the claims in accordance with the arrangements in the funding agreement.
5. These proceedings were issued by Momenta on 5 May 2023. Among other things, it alleged sums were due to it under the outsourcing agreements. Cheval defended and counterclaimed. As to the other parties, Mr Steven McGarry is a barrister and Mr Philip Ryan is a solicitor. They are directors of Cheval and made the business arrangements for Cheval. DGM Administrative Services Limited is another company of which they were directors and which was said by Momenta to have received payments made wrongly by Cheval.
6. Momenta did not participate in the assessment hearing, having gone into liquidation. On inquiring, I was told that the liquidation is voluntary. No permission was therefore required to continue the counterclaim against Momenta. By the time of the assessment hearing, the claim had been dismissed; not being pursued by the liquidators.
Continue reading this Judgment here.
Share:
