Is it A(s)Sign? To lose one Court case may be unfortunate; to lose two Court cases looks like carelessness…

I have previously commented, in two separate blogposts (here and here), on a Bermuda Court case involving one Mr. Peniston, a former barrister now trading as ‘East Bank Consultants’, in which Mr. Peniston unsuccessfully sought to pursue an alleged debt claim against a Mr. Ferigo, relying on a purported assignment of the alleged debt in his favour. The claim was struck out for failure to comply with section 19(d) of the Supreme Court Act 1905, with adverse costs orders being made against Mr. Peniston personally.

Now, in separate proceedings brought by Mr. Peniston against a Mr. Gibbons, Mr. Peniston has suffered the same misfortune, a second time, of having an alleged debt claim struck out, on the very same basis: i.e. the purported assignment was invalid, having failed to satisfy the notice requirements of section 19(d) of the Supreme Court Act 1905.

Procedurally, the case appears to have taken some strange turns, but in short, the claim was struck out by Mr. Justice Hellman on a pure point of law relating to the invalid assignment (the strike out application being heard as a preliminary point on the day that the case had been scheduled for trial): see Peniston v Gibbons [2017] SC (Bda) 28 Civ, handed down on 11 April 2017.

The Plaintiff, Mr. Peniston, appears to have been given leave to appeal, so perhaps the Court of Appeal of Bermuda will be given an opportunity to engage with this interesting case (and any related ones) in due course.





Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s