Technocrats International Inc v Fredic Ltd: QBD 23 Nov 2004

The court was asked to consider the effectiveness of an unsigned assignment of a chose in action: ‘An assignment is only a legal assignment if it complies with s.136 of the 1925 Act. What that section requires is that there should be an ‘absolute assignment by writing under the hand of the assignor (not purporting to be by way of charge only) of any debt or other legal thing in action.’ As I have said above, none of the assignments executed before November 2003 was signed by Mr James personally; instead they were all signed in his name by his wife with his authority. Were those assignments ‘under the hand of the assignor’? In my judgement, they were not. In my opinion, these words should be given their plain and ordinary meaning, and so construed, they require that the assignor himself should sign the assignment. They do not admit of the possibility of someone other than the assignor signing in the assignor’s name.’
Field J
[2004] EWHC 2674 (QB)
Bailii
Law of Property Act 1925 136
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedTrustee Solutions Ltd and others v Dubery and Another ChD 21-Jun-2006
The rules of a pensions scheme were altered. It was required that any such alteration be in writing, but the trustees had not signed the document creating the amendment.
Held: The words ‘writing under hand’ clearly required a signature, and . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 February 2021; Ref: scu.236719