valid equitable assignment

Equitable Assignment: Everything You Need to Know

An equitable assignment is one that does not fulfill the statutory criteria for a legal assignment, but is binding and upheld by the courts in the interest of equability, justice, and fairness. 3 min read updated on July 26, 2024

An equitable assignment is one that does not fulfill the statutory criteria for a legal assignment, but is binding and upheld by the courts in the interest of equability, justice, and fairness.

Equitable Assignment

An equitable assignment may not appear to be self-evident by the law's standard, but it presents the assignee with a title that is protected and recognized in equity. It's based on the essence of a declaration of trust; specifically, essential fairness and natural justice. As long as there is valuable consideration involved, it does not matter if a formal agreement is signed. There needs to be some sort of intent displayed from one party to assign and the other party to receive.

The evaluation of a righteous equitable assignment is completed by determining if a debtor would rationally pay the debt to another party alleging to be the assignee. Equitable assignments can be created by:

• The assignor informing the assignee that they transferred a right to them
• The assignor instructing the other party to release their obligation from the assignee and place it instead on the assignor

The only part of an agreement that can be assigned is the benefit. Generally speaking, there is no prerequisite for the written notice to be received or given. The significant characteristic that separates an equitable assignment from a legal assignment is that most of the time, an equitable assignee may not take action against a third party. Instead, it must rely on the guidelines governing equitable assignments. In other words, the equitable assignee must team up with the assignor to take action.

The Doctrine of Equitable Assignment in Wisconsin

In Dow Family LLC v. PHH Mortgage Corp ., the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued in favor of the doctrine of equitable assignment. The case was similar to many other foreclosure cases, except this one came with a twist. Essentially, Dow Family LLC purchased a property and the property owner insisted the mortgage on the property had been paid off. However, in actuality, it wasn't. 

Prior to the sale, the mortgage on the property was with PHH Mortgage Corp. When PHH went to foreclose on the mortgage, Dow Family LLC contested it. There was one specific rebuttal that caught the attention of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. The official mortgage on record was with MERS, an appointee for the original lender, U.S. Bank.

Dow argued that PHH couldn't foreclose on the property because the true owner was MERS. Essentially, Dow was stating that the mortgage was never assigned to PHH. Based on this argument, PHH utilized the doctrine of equitable assignment.

Based on a case from 1859, Croft v. Bunster, the court determined that the security for a note is equitably assigned when the note is assigned without a need for an independent, written assignment. Additionally, Dow contended that the statute of frauds prohibits the utilization of the doctrine, mainly because it claimed every assignment on a property must be formally recorded.

During the case, Dow argued that the MERS system, which stored the data regarding the mortgage, was fundamentally flawed. According to the court, the statute of frauds was satisfied because the equitable assignment was in accordance with the operation of law. Most importantly, the court avoided all consideration regarding the MERS system, concluding it was not significant in their decision. 

The outcome was a major win for lenders, as they were relying on the doctrine specifically for these types of circumstances.

Most experts agree that this outcome makes sense in the current mortgage-lending environment. This is due to the fact that it is still quite common for mortgages to be bundled up into mortgage-backed securities and sold on the secondary market.

Many economists claim that by not requiring mortgages to be recorded each time a transfer is completed, the loans are more easily marketed to investors. Additionally, debtors know who their current mortgage company is because the new lender must always notify the current borrower in order to receive payment. It was determined that recording and documenting the mortgage merely provides a signal to the rest of the world that the property owner secures a debt.

If you need help with an equitable assignment, you can  post your job  on UpCounsel's marketplace. UpCounsel accepts only the top 5 percent of lawyers to its site. Lawyers on UpCounsel come from law schools such as Harvard Law and Yale Law and average 14 years of legal experience, including work with or on behalf of companies like Google, Menlo Ventures, and Airbnb.

Hire the top business lawyers and save up to 60% on legal fees

Content Approved by UpCounsel

• Assignment Legal Definition
• Assignment Law
• What Is the Definition of Assigns
• Legal Assignment
• Assignment and Novation Agreement: What You Need to Know
• Assignment of Rights Example
• Assignment of Rights and Obligations Under a Contract
• Partial Assignment of Contract
• Assignment Contract Law
• What is an Assignment and Assumption Agreement

Last updated 2nd August 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. As we resolve the issues resulting from this, we are also experiencing some delays to publication. We are working hard to restore services as soon as possible and apologise for the inconvenience. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings .

Login Alert

• > Understanding the Law of Assignment
• > Different Models of Equitable Assignment

Book contents

• Understanding the Law of Assignment
• Copyright page
• Legislation
• Abbreviations
• Part I Introduction
• Part II The Model
• 3 Invariability
• 4 Different Models of Equitable Assignment
• 5 Misconceptions
• 6 Combination
• Part III Joinder
• Part IV Notice
• Part V Statutes
• Part VI Consequences
• Bibliography

4 - Different Models of Equitable Assignment

from Part II - The Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 October 2019

This chapter explores the two main conceptions of equtiable assignment as are currently found in the academic discourse, namely, a ‘substitutive transfer’ model, and a ‘partial trust’ model. The former denies that an equitable assignment operates by way of a trust, at all. The latter, however, admits taht where a legal chose in action is equtably assigned, some form of trustee-beneficiary relationship arises between the assignor and her assignee. But it denies that this arises when an equtiable chose in action is equitably assigned. The ‘partial trust’ model therefore takes equitable assignment to be a fragemented doctrrine which works differently, depending on whether the chose that is to be assigned is a common law chose, or one which arises in equity. This chapter then shows how each of these models are deficient, before showing how a composite model of equitable assignment would avoid these deficiencies.

Access options

Save book to kindle.

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle .

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service .

• Different Models of Equitable Assignment
• C. H. Tham , Singapore Management University
• Book: Understanding the Law of Assignment
• Online publication: 10 October 2019
• Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108636674.010

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox .

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive .

Equitable assignment

Practical law uk glossary 2-107-6540  (approx. 3 pages).

• The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him.
• The assignor can instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligation to the assignee instead of the assignor.

Switch language:

Legal and equitable assignments

• Share on Linkedin
• Share on Facebook

Legal Framework of Equitable Assignments in Finance

Financiers and lessors often take an assignment over debts or certain rights under contracts as part of their security package. Depending on how this is done, an assignment can either be characterised as a legal or equitable assignment under English law. Stephenson Harwood’s Dipesh Bharania explains

A key difference between a legal and equitable assignment is the ability of the assignee, be it a financier or lessor, to bring proceedings in its own name against the debtor for payment of the debt owed, or to enforce rights in the contract.

Go deeper with GlobalData

Alternative Payment Solution: iDEAL

Competitor profile: neat, data insights.

The gold standard of business intelligence.

Find out more

A legal assignee has this right, but there is a question over whether an equitable assignee has this right or not.

In the case of General Nutrition Investment Company v Holland and Barrett International Ltd and another [2017] EWHC 746 Ch, the High Court held that the beneficiary of an equitable assignment did not have the right to bring proceedings in its own name, and had to do so jointly with the assignor which had assigned rights in the underlying contract.

This raises questions about the equitable assignment, as it appears to contradict other judgments which permit an equitable assignee to take proceedings in its own name. The predecessor company of General Nutrition Investment Company (GNIC) entered into a trade mark licence agreement in March 2003 with Holland and Barrett (H&B) allowing H&B to use certain trademarks in the UK.

After complex internal restructuring, the original contracting party had been dissolved and GNIC was the successor company, which as assignee had been assigned both the rights under the original trademark licence agreement, and the rights to the trademarks themselves. GNIC alleged that H&B was in breach of the licence agreement and served a number of notices of termination on H&B purporting to terminate the agreement.

How well do you really know your competitors?

Access the most comprehensive Company Profiles on the market, powered by GlobalData. Save hours of research. Gain competitive edge.

Your download email will arrive shortly

Not ready to buy yet? Download a free sample

We are confident about the unique quality of our Company Profiles. However, we want you to make the most beneficial decision for your business, so we offer a free sample that you can download by submitting the below form

The court had to decide whether any of these notices of termination were effective, and whether GNIC had the right to serve such notices, and bring and maintain proceedings against H&B in its own name.

The formalities for a legal assignment are set out in Section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, including that the assignment must be:

In writing and executed by the assignor “Absolute” and unconditional, Not be expressed to be “by way of charge”, and Notified in writing to the person against whom the assignor could enforce the assigned rights – usually the other contracting party.

It can often suit the assignor, the assignee and the third party to allow the assignor to deal with the third party, for notice not to be given (certainly initially) and the assignee to remain a silent party. This method is frequently used in financing documents, with notice only being given at a later date (rather than at the time of assignment) when there is a possibility of enforcement on the horizon.

An equitable assignment tends to be created when an assignment does not meet one or more of the requirements for a legal assignment. The main differences between a legal and an equitable assignment are priority (and the established principle that the assignee who serves notice first takes priority over any other assignee (where notice is not given)) and an equitable assignee needing to join the assignor as a party in any legal proceedings it brings against the third-party debtor.

However, two recent cases have lessened the distinction in practice between the two. In the Bexhill case the Court of Appeal recognised that an equitable assignee could take action in its own name without joining in the assignor. In the Ardila case, where notice had been given to the contracting party, the High Court looked at the terms of the notice and decided that what had seemed to be a legal assignment was in fact an equitable assignment because the wording of the notice seemed to retain rights for the assignor. The court used this reasoning to declare it an equitable assignment, despite the notice having been given as required.

Returning to the case in point, after the internal reorganisation and subsequent assignment of the trade mark licence agreement to GNIC, no notices of such assignment were served on H&B by the assignor prior to the purported termination of the agreement or the issue of proceedings. GNIC maintained that as it took the place of its predecessor as the “Licensor”, it became the body entitled to exercise rights of termination under the agreement. H&B’s contention was that, as an equitable assignee, GNIC did not have the right to terminate the agreement or bring proceedings in its own name.

It is widely accepted that, until a notice of assignment is given, and (i) the third party can validly discharge its obligations under the contract to the assignor, and (ii) the third party may raise against the assignee any defence or set-off which he could have raised against the assignor (provided that the matter on which the defence is based arose before notice was received) and the contracting party and assignor can amend the terms of the contract without the assignee’s consent.

The High Court considered that previous case law on this issue was binding as it had not been overruled or materially distinguished in any subsequent cases heard, and held that notice to the contracting third party is necessary to perfect the right of the assignee. Additional weight was given to the fact that a substantive contractual right (in this case, the right to terminate the licence agreement) had been assigned rather than just the assignment of a debt. Consequently, the contractual relationship between the parties was seeking to be amended and therefore the third party was entitled to see that such change was being effected by a party which had the right to do so and whom it knew to have such rights. The Court maintained that H&B cannot be expected to accept a notice of termination from an entity which turns out to be an assignee when it had never been given notice of that assignment.

While the High Court accepted that this decision may be appealed, this has raised a question about equitable assignments and the rights of the equitable assignee under English law. In the meantime, in practice, parties will have to scrutinise what type of right they are seeking, whether in security or as a full legal assignment and opt for the method which provides the clearest outcome possible as the law stands when they take the assignment. Anyone taking an assignment of the benefit of a contract should clearly ensure that notice is served on the other contracting party if it wants to be sure it can act in its own name under that contract against the other contracting party if need be.

Otherwise, there is a risk that an equitable assignee will be unable to enforce substantive contractual rights without having to join in the assignor in proceedings. That said, it may still be commercially preferable to have an equitable assignment for particular financing and leasing structures where it is not thought difficult to join the assignor at a later date if need be. In this case it was not possible, as the assignor had been dissolved. Advice should be sought about the type of assignment to be taken in each transaction pending further clarification from the courts.

Related Company Profiles

More relevant.

Top M&A legal advisers in financial services in 2023 

Davis polk & wardwell, kirkland & ellis lead financial services-sector m&a legal advisers in q1-q3 2023, auxillias expands team with two legal, governance and compliance specialists, jo davis and daksha mistry launch specialist legal firm, sign up for our daily news round-up.

Give your business an edge with our leading industry insights.

Sign up to the newsletter: In Brief

Your corporate email address, i would also like to subscribe to:.

Leasing Life Focus (monthly)

I consent to Verdict Media Limited collecting my details provided via this form in accordance with Privacy Policy

Thank you for subscribing

View all newsletters from across the GlobalData Media network.

Azmi & Associates

Legal Consulting : Conception to Completion

Statutory Assignment vs Equitable Assignment

This article attempts to provide a brief overview of the differences between statutory assignment and equitable assignment. The actual application of the general rules described here would be subject to the applicable distinct facts and circumstances.

What is Assignment?

An assignment is a transfer of rights or liabilities such as those that arise under an instrument, chose in action 1 , or debt. An assignment can either be a statutory assignment or an equitable assignment.

In Malaysia, an assignment complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was described as a ‘statutory assignment’ and an assignment not complying with Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956 was a ‘non-statutory assignment’ i.e., an equitable assignment. 2 The conditions of a statutory assignment are as follows: 3

(a) it must be absolute and did not purport to be by way of charge only;

(b) the assignment was in writing under the hand of the assignor; and

(c) express notice in writing thereof had been given to the debtor or trustee.

Meanwhile, an equitable assignment gives the assignee a right enforceable only in equity. The mode or form of assignment is absolutely immaterial provided the intention of the parties is clear. 4

Rules that Govern Assignments

Written notice is an essential part of a statutory assignment. Therefore, it is ineffective unless strictly accurate – accurate, for instance, as regards the date of the assignment and the amount due from the debtor. 5

However, notice is not necessary to perfect an equitable assignment. Even without notice to the debtor the title to the assignee is complete, not only against the assignor personally, but also against the persons who stand in the same position as the assignor, as, for instance, his trustee in bankruptcy, a judgement creditor or a person claiming under a later assignment made without consideration. 6

In regard to the form of notice, as mentioned earlier, a statutory assignment must comply with the form of notice required under Section 4(3) of the Civil Law Act 1956, whilst for an equitable assignment, no particular form is required to constitute a valid equitable assignment.

Additionally, it must be noted that although notice is not required for equitable assignments, an assignee must give notice to the debtor in order to get priority over other assignee(s). In this regard, the Federal Court in Public Finance Bhd v Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd (In Receivership) (Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia, Intervener) [1996] 2 MLJ 369 explained in detail about the importance of notice:

“ We need to say a few words more about the great desirability of giving notice of assignment of a debt by an assignee to the debtor, even though absence of such notice does not affect the validity of the equitable assignment as between the assignor and the assignee. If notice is not given, the assignee must give credit for any payment made to the assignor by the debtor. This rule means that, by extension, even if the assignor assigns once more the debt to another person in fraud or otherwise on the earlier assignee, and that other person gives notice to the debtor; and if the debtor pays that other person or the second assignee, then the earlier assignee must still give credit to the debtor for his payment thus, for the debtor cannot be blamed for doing lawfully in ignorance of the title of the earlier assignee who has failed to give notice of the assignment to the debtor. Notice to debtor is for the protection of the assignee himself. It is this effect of what the debtor does lawfully as described that dims the view of the true role of the nemo dat rule in the resolution of disputed claims to a same debt. The money paid to the ‘second assignee’ can, of course, be recovered by the earlier assignee on the nemo dat principle. ”

(b) An assignee takes subject to equities

For both statutory assignment and equitable assignment, the assignee takes ‘subject to equities’, that is, subject to all such defences as might have prevailed against the assignor.

The general rule, both at law and in equity, is that no person can acquire title to a chose in action…from one who has himself no title to it. 7 In other words, the assignee can be in a no better position than the assignor was prior to the assignment. 8

(c) Rights incapable of assignment

Some choses in action are not assignable, and not every right which arises under or out of a contract can be assigned. 9 An example of rights incapable of assignment is where the nature of the contract is intended to be personal, therefore, it will be meaningless if it is assigned to another person.

Effect of Assignment

A statutory assignment has the sole intended effect of facilitating an assignee to sue in his own name directly irrespective of whether the chose in action is an equitable chose in action or a legal chose in action. 10

Meanwhile, the effect of an equitable assignment depends on whether the assignment is absolute or not. An absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action entitles the assignee to bring an action in his own name. 11 But a non-absolute assignment of an equitable chose in action does not entitle the assignee to sue in his own name but requires him to join the assignor as a party. 12

• ‘Chose in action’ is a known legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action, and not by taking physical possession (Associated Tractors Sdn Bhd v Woo Sai Wa [1997] 5 MLJ 441 (High Court)).
• MBF Factors Sdn Bhd v Tay Hing Ju (T/A New General Trading) [2002] 5 MLJ 536 (High Court).
• Williams Brandt Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co [1905] AC 454 (House of Lords).
• Leong, A. P. B. (1998). Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston’s Law of Contract (2nd ed.). Butterworths Asia, at page 861.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 400.
• Meagher, R. P., Heydon, J. D., & Leeming, M. J. (2022). Meagher, Gummow and Lehane’s Equity Doctrine and Remedies (4th ed., p. 284). Butterworths LexisNexis.
• Guest, A. G. (1984). Anson’s law of contract, at page 402.
• Lim Chon Jet @ Lim Chon Jat & Ors v Wee Ai Hua & Anor [2022] 6 MLJ 243 (Court of Appeal).

Written by:

Nur Izzatie Azlan & Narina Aireen Hilmy Zaini  ( [email protected] )

Corporate Communications Azmi & Associates 28 November 2023

Related Articles

The regulatory framework of stem cell research and therapy in malaysia, the legal aspects of purchasing a drilling rig, legal aspects of autonomous rapid transit (art), the role of intellectual property rights in the fashion business: a malaysian perspective, clean team agreements: the answer behind safeguarding confidentiality in an increasingly competitive world, privacy overview.

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

Dear Valued Clients,

Following the national fiscal (Budget 2024) announcement, the proposed Service Tax (ST) rate will be increased from the current rate of 6% to 8% with effect from 1 March 2024, on selected taxable services including the legal services sector.

At this point, Azmi & Associates (“ the Firm ”) has outlined a tentative approach to the proposed increase in ST, pending further clarifications and implementation guidelines from the relevant Ministry and the Royal Malaysian Customs Department.

During this period, the Firm reserves the right to update or modify the information as deemed necessary.

1. Effective Date The anticipated effective date for the implementation of the new tax rate (8%) is set for 1 March 2024.

2. Transitional rules for the proposed increase in Service Tax rate a. Service Tax at 6% is applicable on taxable services provided before 1 March 2024; Service Tax at 8% is applicable on taxable services provided post 1 March 2024. b. Taxable services spanning 1 March 2024: • Service Tax at 6% for the portion of taxable services provided before 1 March 2024 • Service Tax at 8% for the portion of taxable services provided post 1 March 2024

Should you have any queries or require further clarification on this matter, please feel free to reach out to us. We highly value our client relationships and are dedicated to ensuring a seamless transition through these changes.

Corporate Communications, Azmi & Associates – 16 February 2024

Powered by WhatsApp Chat

WhatsApp Chat is free, download and try it now here!

Related Content

• practice notes (88)
• precedents (5)
• q&as (43)

Equitable assignment definition

What does equitable assignment mean.

assignment s can occur in equity when any of the requirements of legal assignment are not satisfied.

The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him or instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligations to the assignee. Only the benefit of an agreement may be assigned. There is no requirement for written notice to be given or received. The position of a party who wishes to be able to make an equitable transfer of obligations under the contract is the same as described under legal assignments.

View the related practice notes about Equitable assignment

Contracts required to be in writing.

This Practice Note considers the specific situations where a contract is required by law to be in writing: assignments, contracts...

Transferring a loan by assignment

This Practice Note explains one of the key ways a lender can transfer a loan under English law to another...

Discover our 88 Practice Notes on Equitable assignment

View the related precedents about Equitable assignment

Ireland—notice of assignment of contract—from assignor.

Ireland—Notice of assignment of contract—from assignor [Headed notepaper of the assignor] To: [Insert name and address of recipient (ie the...

Ireland—Debenture: single company chargor—bilateral—all monies

Bilateral debenture for a chargor incorporated as a limited company in Ireland to secure the chargor’s obligations to the lender...

Dive into our 5 Precedents related to Equitable assignment

View the related q&as about Equitable assignment

If a tenant fails to complete the formalities for assigning a commercial lease to an assignee, and the assignee takes possession of the premises with the landlord’s knowledge and consent, would there be an equitable assignment of the lease.

If a tenant fails to complete the formalities for assigning a commercial lease to an assignee, and the assignee takes...

Person 1 is the freehold owner of Plot A and also had a lease of the neighbouring plot, Plot B. Person 1 grants a lease to Person 2 of Plots A and B. Person 1's leasehold tenure of Plot B comes to an end—Person 2 now ends up with a split reversion landlord situation, having Person 1 as landlord with control over Plot A and the original freehold owner of Plot B as its other landlord. Are the landlords jointly and severally liable for landlord covenants under the lease (which is holding over)?

Person 1 is the freehold owner of Plot A and also had a lease of the neighbouring plot, Plot B....

See the 43 Q&As about Equitable assignment

View the related News about Equitable assignment

Banking & finance—november 2023 case round-up.

Banking & Finance analysis: This News Analysis provides a summary of the cases we have alerted in Banking & Finance...

Property Disputes weekly highlights—30 November 2023

This week's edition of Property Disputes weekly highlights includes: the introduction of the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Bill to Parliament,...

Read the latest 50 News articles on Equitable assignment

Speed up all aspects of your legal work with tools that help you to work faster and smarter. Win cases, close deals and grow your business–all whilst saving time and reducing risk.

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

• Instant clarification on points of law
• Smart search
• Workflow tools
• 41 practice areas

** Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

"The way LexisNexis dealt with us was receptive and not pushy. They took the time to get to know us and what we needed as a business."

Irwin Mitchell

Access all documents on Equitable assignment

0330 161 1234

• International Sales(Includes Middle East)
• Latin America and the Caribbean
• Netherlands
• New Zealand
• Philippines
• South Africa
• Switzerland
• United States

Popular Links

• Supplier Payment Terms
• Partner Alliance Programme

HELP & SUPPORT

• Legal Help and Support
• Tolley Tax Help and Support

LEGAL SOLUTIONS

• Compliance and Risk
• Forms and Documents
• Legal Drafting
• Legal Research
• Magazines and Journals
• News and Media Analysis
• Practice Management
• Privacy Policy
• Cookie Settings
• Terms & Conditions
• Data Protection Inquiry
• Protecting Human Rights: Our Modern Slavery Agreement

• Find a Lawyer
• Ask a Lawyer
• Research the Law
• Law Schools
• Laws & Regs
• Newsletters
• Justia Connect
• Pro Membership
• Basic Membership
• Justia Lawyer Directory
• Platinum Placements
• Gold Placements
• Justia Elevate
• Justia Amplify
• PPC Management
• Google Business Profile
• Social Media
• Justia Onward Blog

equitable assignment

• A transfer of property or rights, particularly those in which the transferor has a future interest, that may not technically be legal, but would be considered fair and just by a court focusing on justice and fairness
• Despite the lack of a written contract, the judge recognized the equitable assignment of the store's future profits to the plaintiff.
• The attorney argued that even though there was no formal agreement, the bank's actions reflected an equitable assignment of the debts.
• While there was no formal deed of transfer, the court acknowledged the equitable assignment of the property based on the circumstances.
• Bankruptcy Lawyers
• Business Lawyers
• Criminal Lawyers
• Employment Lawyers
• Estate Planning Lawyers
• Family Lawyers
• Personal Injury Lawyers
• Estate Planning
• Personal Injury
• Business Formation
• Business Operations
• Intellectual Property
• International Trade
• Real Estate
• Financial Aid
• Course Outlines
• Law Journals
• US Constitution
• Regulations
• Supreme Court
• Circuit Courts
• District Courts
• Dockets & Filings
• State Constitutions
• State Codes
• State Case Law
• Legal Blogs
• Business Forms
• Product Recalls
• Justia Connect Membership
• Justia Premium Placements
• Justia Elevate (SEO, Websites)
• Justia Amplify (PPC, GBP)
• Testimonials

Assignments: why you need to serve a notice of assignment

Catherine phillips.

PSL Principal Associate

It's the day of completion; security is taken, assignments are completed and funds move. Everyone breathes a sigh of relief. At this point, no-one wants to create unnecessary paperwork - not even the lawyers! Notices of assignment are, in some circumstances, optional. However, in other transactions they could be crucial to a lender's enforcement strategy. In the article below, we have given you the facts you need to consider when deciding whether or not you need to serve notice of assignment.

What issues are there with serving notice of assignment?

Assignments are useful tools for adding flexibility to banking transactions. They enable the transfer of one party's rights under a contract to a new party (for example, the right to receive an income stream or a debt) and allow security to be taken over intangible assets which might be unsuitable targets for a fixed charge. A lender's security net will often include assignments over contracts (such as insurance or material contracts), intellectual property rights, investments or receivables.

An assignment can be a legal assignment or an equitable assignment. If a legal assignment is required, the assignment must comply with a set of formalities set out in s136 of the Law of Property Act 1925, which include the requirement to give notice to the contract counterparty.

The main difference between legal and equitable assignments (other than the formalities required to create them) is that with a legal assignment, the assignee can usually bring an action against the contract counterparty in its own name following assignment. However, with an equitable assignment, the assignee will usually be required to join in proceedings with the assignor (unless the assignee has been granted specific powers to circumvent that). That may be problematic if the assignor is no longer available or interested in participating.

Why should we serve a notice of assignment?

The legal status of the assignment may affect the credit scoring that can be given to a particular class of assets. It may also affect a lender's ability to effect part of its exit strategy if that strategy requires the lender to be able to deal directly with the contract counterparty.

The case of General Nutrition Investment Company (GNIC) v Holland and Barrett International Ltd and another (H&B) provides an example of an equitable assignee being unable to deal directly with a contract counterparty as a result of a failure to provide a notice of assignment.

The case concerned the assignment of a trade mark licence to GNIC . The other party to the licence agreement was H&B. H&B had not received notice of the assignment. GNIC tried to terminate the licence agreement for breach by serving a notice of termination. H&B disputed the termination. By this point in time the original licensor had been dissolved and so was unable to assist.

At a hearing of preliminary issues, the High Court held that the notices of termination served by GNIC , as an equitable assignee, were invalid, because no notice of the assignment had been given to the licensee. Although only a High Court decision, this follows a Court of Appeal decision in the Warner Bros Records Inc v Rollgreen Ltd case, which was decided in the context of the attempt to exercise an option.

In both cases, an equitable assignee attempted to exercise a contractual right that would change the contractual relationship between the parties (i.e. by terminating the contractual relationship or exercising an option to extend the term of a licence). The judge in GNIC felt that "in each case, the counterparty (the recipient of the relevant notice) is entitled to see that the potential change in his contractual position is brought about by a person who is entitled, and whom he can see to be entitled, to bring about that change".

In a security context, this could hamper the ability of a lender to maximise the value of the secured assets but yet is a constraint that, in most transactions, could be easily avoided.

Why not serve notice?

Sometimes it's just not necessary or desirable. For example:

• If security is being taken over a large number of low value receivables or contracts, the time and cost involved in giving notice may be disproportionate to the additional value gained by obtaining a legal rather than an equitable assignment.
• If enforcement action were required, the equitable assignee typically has the option to join in the assignor to any proceedings (if it could not be waived by the court) and provision could be made in the assignment deed for the assignor to assist in such situations. Powers of attorney are also typically granted so that a lender can bring an action in the assignor's name.
• Enforcement is often not considered to be a significant issue given that the vast majority of assignees will never need to bring claims against the contract counterparty.

Care should however, be taken in all circumstances where the underlying contract contains a ban on assignment, as the contract counterparty would not have to recognise an assignment that is made in contravention of that ban. Furthermore, that contravention in itself may trigger termination and/or other rights in the assigned contract, that could affect the value of any underlying security.

What about acknowledgements of notices?

A simple acknowledgement of service of notice is simply evidence of the notice having been received. However, these documents often contain commitments or assurances by the contract counterparty which increase their value to the assignee.

Best practice for serving notice of assignment

Each transaction is different and the weighting given to each element of the security package will depend upon the nature of the debt and the borrower's business. The service of a notice of assignment may be a necessity or an optional extra. In each case, the question of whether to serve notice is best considered with your advisers at the start of a transaction to allow time for the lender's priorities to be highlighted to the borrowers and captured within the documents.

For further advice on serving notice of assignment please contact Kirsty Barnes or Catherine Phillips  from our Banking & Finance team.

NOT LEGAL ADVICE. Information made available on this website in any form is for information purposes only. It is not, and should not be taken as, legal advice. You should not rely on, or take or fail to take any action based upon this information. Never disregard professional legal advice or delay in seeking legal advice because of something you have read on this website. Gowling WLG professionals will be pleased to discuss resolutions to specific legal concerns you may have.

Related services

• 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

Necessary cookies . These are cookies which are necessary for the operation of our website. We set these cookies so that they are always on.

Analytics and other third-party cookies . We would like to use analytics and limited other third-party cookies to improve our website and your experience using it. These cookies collect and report information to us about your browsing activity on our website. If you are happy to allow us to use these cookies, please click “all cookies” or you can turn individual cookies on by clicking "manage cookies". You can change your preferences at any time by visiting our cookie details page.

We use cookies on our website, details of which are set out below.

Necessary cookies

These are cookies which are necessary for the operation of our website. We set these cookies so that they are always on, although you may be able to disable these cookies via your browser if you wish. Please note that if these cookies are disabled then you may not be able to use some or all of the functionality of our website.

Ideally over time we would like to be able to improve our website and your experience using it. We would like to deploy analytics cookies to enable us to do this, which would collect and report information to us about your browsing activity on our website. However, we will only use these cookies with your consent and these cookies are switched off until you opt to turn them on. Click here for a full list of analytics cookies used on our website.

Third-party cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your experience of the website. Click here for a full list of third-party plugins used on our website.

Search our site

Equitable assignment

Practical law uk glossary 2-107-6540  (approx. 3 pages).

• The assignor can inform the assignee that he transfers a right or rights to him.
• The assignor can instruct the other party or parties to the agreement to discharge their obligation to the assignee instead of the assignor.
• General Contract and Boilerplate

• Practical Law

Practical Law UK Glossary 1-107-6442  (Approx. 4 pages)

• Lending: General
• After Death
• General Contract and Boilerplate
• Security and Quasi Security

Assignment of Choses in Action

Property generally may be realty (real) or personalty (personal). Realty are characterized by geographical fixity(land) while personalty are generally mobile.

Personalty is also classified into tangible/corporeal and intangible/incorporeal. The former is capable of physical handling/possession/manipulation/enjoyment while the latter is incapable of any of these.

Incorporeal property is also called a chose in action which has been defined as a legal expression used to describe all personal rights of property which can only be claimed or enforced by action (in a court) and not by taking physical possession.

A chose generally is a thing capable of being owned. Choses in action may be legal or equitable. Legal choses in action are rights which were enforceable or recoverable only by an action at Common law. This category of choses includes debts, benefits under a contract, insurance policies, copyrights, patents etc.

Equitable choses on the other hand are rights over property which were only enforceable/recoverable/cognizable by the courts of Chancery. It could only be recovered by a suit in Equity and the rights under this category include interests of a beneficiary in a Trust, a legacy/reversionary interest under a will etc.

Choses in action may also be in respect of already existing things/property or things/property to be acquired at a future date but which are not yet in possession. The chose in action may be property in itself and it may also be a propriety right over property.

Assignment is the transfer of something from one person to another such that the assignee obtains rights of a nature that were hitherto exercisable only by the assignor. An assignment of a chose is thus the transfer of a chose in action from the assignor to the assignee such that the assignee obtains and becomes entitled to enjoy rights in respect of that chose, which were hitherto exclusively enjoyed by the assignor.

Assignment may be legal (statutory) or equitable.

Assignment and Novation

An assignment is quite distinct from a novation. Novation is essentially a legal device by which parties to a contract may legally vary/shift their obligations under the contract to third parties. Thus, A can agree with B, his creditor, that C, who owes him money, will pay that debt to B in full satisfaction of his own (A’s) debt.

Novation is however fundamentally different from assignment in three material aspects:

• The consent of the parties is sine qua non since the original contract is rescinded by the novation. There must thus be consensus ad idem. There can be no novation otherwise. This is contrary to the case in assignment where there only need be communication to the assignee, his consent and that of the trustee of the liability are immaterial.
• The original debt in novation must be totally extinguished under the new arrangement.

There is no such requirement for assignment to be valid.

• For novation to be valid, there must be consideration in all cases as it is essentially a new contract. The requirement for consideration in assignment is much more relaxed.

Assignment and Equities

The general rule as regards assignment of choses in action is that an assignee takes, subject to the equities thar already apply to the chose in action (property) in question. Thus, anyone who has an interest (legal or equitable) in an assigned chose is entitled to a higher priority than that of the assignee.

The logic here is based on a recognition that the assignee cannot acquire a better title than that of the assignor. What he essentially gains by virtue of the assignment is a right to continue in the stead of the assignor in respect of that chose and nothing better.

In Re Knapman (1881) 18 Ch. D 300 the beneficiaries of a will brought an action against the executor seeking to revoke the probate. While the matter was in court, these beneficiaries assigned the right under the will to someone else.

Their action subsequently failed in court, the court ruled that the executor had a right to set off the costs of the suit against the estate. As such, since the right to this had already been assigned, the assignee has to settle this cost since he was assigned a property that had a pre-existing liability.

Claims of equities that arise after notice of the assignment has been given to the trustee would not affect the assignee however, except where the claim is very closely related to the original transaction upon which the chose came into existence.

The rule that the assignee takes subject to equities will not apply where the trustee is estopped, either by conduct or deed, from setting up equities against the assignee. It would not also apply where the agreement occasioning the original transaction includes a clause that the assignees of the assignor would take free from all equities.

Historically, assignment of choses in action was largely unrecognized at Common law. There was the fear that allowing such assignment would bring about Maintenance and even cases of Champerty as well as the risk of encouraging a litany of contentious matters on the same res.

Maintenance arises where a person who has no legal interest in a matter provides assistance by money or otherwise to a party to the suit while Champerty marries the foregoing with the prospect of reward out of the possible spoils of the suit.

Thus, no debt could be assigned at Common law unless the debtor specifically agreed to the assignment. The only exceptions allowed by Common law were in respect of choses in action assigned by or to the King and assignment of negotiable instruments in order to promote trade.

Equity has however always recognized the assignment of choses in action, both equitable and legal. It would not however allow the assignment of bare rights without accompanying interest in property. This was to avoid, as in the case of the Common law, situations that encourage Maintenance.

Assignability

Not all choses in action are assignable. The courts would not give effect to such assignments either on grounds of public policy or on account of the nature of the subject matter of the assignment.

Choses in action that are not assignable include:

• Salaries of public officials. This is because it is perceived that if allowed to assign their salaries, they may deprive themselves of their means of sustenance and thereby impair the efficiency which is most desirable for the public service.
• Alimony is not assignable on much the same grounds as salaries of public officials as the money is meant for the maintenance of the spouse.
• Rights arising out of a contract of a personal nature i.e. contracts that require personal service like employment.
• Expectancies (future choses) are not assignable at Common law based on the maxim: Nemo dat quod non habet. They are assignable in Equity although, such assignment must be for value.

Equitable Assignment

An equitable assignment is of a flexible nature. This flexibility makes it quite distinct from legal assignments as they do not require all of the formality required under the law. It may be in respect of a legal or equitable chose. Thus, there may be an equitable assignment of an equitable chose or an equitable assignment of a legal chose.

While there is no strict formality required for equitable assignments, certain criteria are instructive as to whether it would be considered valid or not.

For an equitable assignment to be considered as having been effected, there must be a clear intent to assign. While Equity does not require that the assignment be in writing or made in any particular format, there must be a clearly deducible intent to assign on the part of the assignor.

The intent to assign here will be construed from the words used and the particular circumstances of the case. If what is construed is a mere mandate/authority to hold onto certain property, no intent to assign may be ascribed by the court.

The position that Equity does not require writing for equitable assignments has however been affected by S. 9 of the Statute of Frauds and S. 78(1)(c) of the Property and Conveyancing Law which require that the assignment of any equitable interest or trust must be in writing.

The assignment is also required to be communicated to the assignee. Although, the assignee may still take in certain instances even without communication, subject to the right of the assignee to repudiate the transfer when he becomes aware of it.

The particular chose intended to be assigned must be identified. It is insufficient to give a vague representation of what is sought to be assigned. Such vagueness may impair the court’s construction of an intent to assign in such circumstance.

Consideration in equitable assignment depends on the circumstance. Where the assignment is complete in the sense that there is nothing left for the assignor to do to perfect the assignee’s title, there would be no need for consideration.

If it is incomplete though, consideration may be required. Consideration will also be required where the assignment concerns some future chose as the agreement in such instance can only be a contract to assign and all contracts must be backed by consideration.

No consideration is however required for assignment of existing choses.

There is no real requirement for notice of the equitable assignment to be given to the trustee of the liability. Notice is however useful to the extent that it puts the trustee on guard as to the change of rights affecting the chose and may prevent him from settling in favour of the assignor instead of the assignee.

It also makes the trustee liable to the assignee where he settles in favour of the assignor in spite of the notice given to him. Again, while the assignee generally takes subject to any prior equities affecting the chose, giving notice ensures that he would not be affected by any subsequent equities.

Most importantly, notice allows the assignee to establish the priority of his interest in consequence of the rule in DEARLE v HALL.

An equitable assignment of a chose in action has bearing on the manner in which the rights can be enforced in a court of law. The effect here is largely dependent on whether the chose in question is a legal or equitable chose and if the chose was absolutely assigned or not.

Where the assignment concerns a legal chose, the assignee cannot assert his title over the property in his own name. He must join the name of the assignor either as co-plaintiff, where he agrees, or as a defendant. Where the chose is equitable though, the assignee can sue in his own name.

An assignment is absolute when the assignor transfers his whole interest in the chose to the assignee. It is however non-absolute where it is made subject to some condition at the happening of which it would become inoperable or where only a charge is made on the chose, in favour of the assignee.

In this instance, only a part of the assignor’s interest is transferred. The effect of this is that in situations where the transfer was absolute, the assignee would be able to sue in his own name. Where it is not absolute however, he must join the assignor before he can enforce his rights over the chose.

Where the chose is legal though, it is immaterial whether it is absolute or not, the assignee must join the assignor.

Legal Assignment

The Common law rule against assignment of choses in action was only lifted in 1875 and this was via the provision of the Judicature Acts, particularly S. 25(6) . This provision is impari materia with S. 150(1) Property and Conveyancing Law .

The purport of those provisions is that there can be absolute assignments by writing of any debt or other legal thing in action when express notice in writing has been given to the trustee of the liability. Also, it shall be effectual to transfer the legal right to sue in respect of such thing, along with the legal and other remedies in respect of it and the power to give a good discharge for the chose without the assignor’s permission.

The provisions clearly contain ingredients that would make a legal assignment valid and these include the following:

• The assignment must be in writing and signed by the assignor.
• It must be in respect of some existing debt or other legal thing in action and this includes equitable choses in action.
• It must be absolute.
• There must be an express notice in writing given to the debtor, trustee, or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to receive the debt or claim the thing in action.

The assignment takes effect from the date that notice is given. Failure to give notice at all or failure to give it in writing or failure to even execute the writing in the first place will not invalidate the assignment.

Rather, it becomes an equitable assignment instead of a legal one. Further, there is no requirement for consideration here.

The position at Common law before the Act amended it was that the assignee had no right independent of the assignor’s and was obligated to sue in the assignor’s name if he wanted to enforce his rights over the chose.

The Acts have however changed this and the assignee no longer needs to sue in the name of the assignor. He can sue all by himself.

2 thoughts on “ Assignment of Choses in Action ”

Your really hoshmeasures sir thankx

Great work. You are appreciated sir!

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Notify me by email when the comment gets approved.

Join an online course that makes it easy for you to get A’s in your law exams, you can check it out here: Get Access to Ace LL.B Exams.

• Asset Finance
• Invoice Finance
• Property and Construction
• Insolvency and Financial Rescue
• Debt Collection
• Intellectual Property and IT
• Litigation and Dispute Resolution
• Private Client
• International
• Legal Vacancies
• Business Support Vacancies
• Training Contracts

Legal and Equitable Assignments; Validity of Notice of Assignment

Readers will be aware that it is very rare for a reported case in the higher courts dealing with invoice finance to emerge, so we were interested to see a report of a recent case in another area of financial services which raised squarely 2 legal concepts which are fundamental to invoice financiers:

• the difference between the legal assignment and equitable assignment of a debt; and
• whether notice of assignment requires the debtor to receive a copy of the instrument of assignment.

Legal and equitable assignment

In Frischmann v Vaxeal Holdings SA [2023] EWHC 2698 , the court was concerned with a challenge to the assignment of rights under two loan agreements and a guarantee. The first point considered by the court related to the requirements for a legal assignment as set out in section 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925 (“LPA”).

Section 136 of the LPA provides:

“ (1)  Any 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, of which express notice in writing has been given to the debtor, trustee or other person from whom the assignor would have been entitled to claim such debt or thing in action, is effectual in law (subject to equities having priority over the right of the assignee) to pass and transfer from the date of such notice—

          (a)  the legal right to such debt or thing in action;

          (b)  all legal and other remedies for the same; and

(c)  the power to give a good discharge for the same without the concurrence of the assignor:

Provided that, if the debtor, trustee or other person liable in respect of such debt or thing in action has notice—

(a)  that the assignment is disputed by the assignor or any person claiming under him; or

          (b)  of any other opposing or conflicting claims to such debt or thing in action;

he may, if he thinks fit, either call upon the persons making claim thereto to interplead concerning the same, or pay the debt or other thing in action into court under the provisions of the Trustee Act 1925”.

The defendants contended, among other things, that the assignment here was ineffective and void because it was not in writing under the hand of (signed by) the assignor, as required by section 136 of the LPA. The assignment had been signed on behalf of the assignor by an attorney acting under a power of attorney.

The court found that there was not a valid legal assignment because of the particular provisions of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971, and held that because an effective assignment under section 136 must be in writing and under the hand of the assignor, an assignment signed by the assignor’s attorney did not satisfy this requirement. The court did not accept that the wording of the Powers of Attorney Act 1971 should be treated as rewriting the LPA without express reference to the earlier statute.

Although the court found that there was not a valid legal assignment, the court went on to find that the assignment took effect as an equitable assignment, relying on the case of Technocrats International Ltd v Fredic Ltd (No. 1) [2004] EWHC 692 (QB) [57], in which Field J explained that for there to be an effective equitable assignment:

“ all that is needed is some transaction that sufficiently manifests an intention by the owner of an identified [debt] to assign it to another”.

Validity of notice of assignment

An equitable assignment does not require notice to the debtor, but the judge went on to deal with this issue in case it would later be found by a court on appeal that he was wrong about the finding that the assignment did not qualify as a legal assignment, and he gave short shrift to this argument:

“The defendants’ next line of defence is that although they [in] the Re-Amended Defence that they “admit receipt of a letter purporting to give notice of the alleged assignment; nevertheless, [they] cannot plead to whether or not they were given notice of “the Assignment” as no assignment was enclosed with the letter of 18 June 2020 and [they] are not aware if any assignment was in fact executed…

There is no legal requirement that an obligor is to be provided with a copy of the Assignment itself. I conclude that the letter of 18 June 2020 would have amounted to a good notice had section 136 been complied with and was a good notice of the equitable assignment which I have concluded is what had taken place”.

Although this case does not establish any new principle of law, it is a useful example of the court taking a sensible view of what can sometimes be highly technical legal doctrines relating to assignment and the requirements for notice of assignment.

These issues are highly relevant to invoice financiers:

Equitable assignments can be informal

Any assignment in which the intention of the parties is clear has long been recognised as a valid equitable assignment: there need be no writing, and no notice to the debtor, but the effect of an absolute transfer of ownership of a debt is the same.

There is therefore very little practical difference between legal and equitable assignments: in practice a technical rule requiring Court proceedings to enforce equitable assignments to be brought by both the Financier and the Client is almost universally ignored with no adverse consequences.

Effect of Notice on the Debtor

Receipt of notice of assignment by the debtor has the following important legal consequences:

• it prevents discharge of the debt by subsequent payment to the Client;
• it prevents future changes in the terms of the contract of sale being enforceable against the Financier; and

(3) it fixes the rights of the parties in relation to some aspects of set-off.

Here the court sensibly rejected the debtor’s argument that merely being told about the fact of assignment did not equate to notice, and that it was incumbent upon the assignee to provide a copy of the document or instrument effecting the assignment.

Contact our Invoice Finance Team.

BREAKING: Bangladesh's longest-serving Prime Minister resigns and flees the country

Boxer previously barred from women’s events wins fight after opponent quits in 46 seconds

A female boxer whose gender identity has recently been questioned won her first fight at the Paris Olympics on Thursday.

Imane Khelif of Algeria defeated Angela Carini of Italy after Carini quit 46 seconds into the match. Carini stopped the fight after only a few punches were exchanged, avoided shaking Khelif’s hand and then fell to the floor in tears. 

Khelif’s participation in Olympic women’s boxing has been scrutinized in recent days after reports resurfaced that she and another boxer, Lin Yu‑ting of Taiwan, failed to meet gender eligibility tests at the Women’s World Boxing Championships in New Delhi last year. At the time, sporting officials alleged that the boxers failed an unspecified test because they had male chromosomes.

Khelif, 25, has always competed as a woman — including during the Tokyo Olympics — and there’s no indication that she identifies as transgender or intersex, the latter referring to people born with sex characteristics that do not fit strictly into the male-female gender binary.

Carini said she ended Thursday’s fight because she felt a “severe pain” in her nose. She added that she is not qualified to decide whether Khelif should have been allowed to compete.

“I am not here to judge or pass judgment,” Carini told reporters after the match. “If an athlete is this way, and in that sense it’s not right or it is right, it’s not up to me to decide.”

Others were less reserved.

“We have to pay attention, in an attempt to not discriminate, that we’re actually discriminating” against women, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni told reporters during a visit to the Olympic Village. “In these things what counts is your dedication, your head and character, but it also counts having a parity of arms.”

Several American politicians, including former President Donald Trump, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem , also shared their views on the match.

“I WILL KEEP MEN OUT OF WOMEN’S SPORTS!” Trump wrote on his social media site, Truth Social .

Khelif’s win also provoked responses from several prominent figures who are frequently criticized for their remarks about transgender people.

“Harry Potter” author J.K. Rowling repeatedly referred to Khelif as “male” and called the match a “ brutal injustice ” in a series of posts on X.

Billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, who recently drew criticism for his comments about his estranged trans daughter , also weighed in on X, which he owns. Replying to a post that included a video of the fight and read “Kamala supports this…vote accordingly,” Musk, who endorsed Trump last month, wrote: “True or let her deny it.” 

While most of the responses online appear to be critical, Khelif was not without support. 

Ismaël Bennacer, who plays soccer for the Algerian national team, was among those who defended Khelif.

“Full support for our champion Imane Khelif, who is suffering a wave of unjustified hatred,” he wrote on X. “Her presence at the Olympic Games is simply the result of her talent and hard work.”

Khelif celebrated her win on social media, sharing a photo of herself from Thursday’s fight on Instagram and writing, “first Victory.” She did not address the criticisms in the post; she has said her disqualification from the world championships last year was a “conspiracy.” 

In a s tatement Thursday, the International Olympic Committee criticized the backlash directed at Khelif and Taiwan's Lin during the Olympics, as well as the decision by the International Boxing Association, or IBA, to disqualify them from last year's Women’s World Boxing Championships.

"The current aggression against these two athletes is based entirely on this arbitrary decision, which was taken without any proper procedure — especially considering that these athletes had been competing in top-level competition for many years," the statement said, in part. "Such an approach is contrary to good governance."

The IOC noted in its statement that it withdrew recognition of the IBA last year. The relationship was severed following years of governance and financial transparency issues, as well as perceived instances of corruption.

Instead of the IBA, the IOC refers to the Paris 2024 Boxing Unit — an ad-hoc unit it developed — for its eligibility standards. In Thursday's statement, the IOC said, "As with previous Olympic boxing competitions, the gender and age of the athletes are based on their passport."

The Algerian Olympic and Sports Committee did not respond to a request for comment about the criticisms surrounding Khelif’s win.

Abderrahmane Hammad, Algeria’s minister of youth and sports, addressed concerns over Khelif’s gender identity Wednesday.

“I strongly condemn the baseless attacks on our athlete, Imane Khelif, by certain foreign outlets,” he wrote on X . “These cowardly attempts to tarnish her reputation are utterly unacceptable.”

Related stories:

• Boxers previously barred from women's events will fight in Paris Olympics
• Team USA's Lauren Scruggs on winning silver in fencing and making Olympic history
• A record 193 LGBTQ athletes to compete in Paris Olympics

In a series of posts on social media Thursday, the Algerian Olympic and Sports Committee celebrated Khelif’s win.

“We are proud of you and look forward to seeing you shine even more in the next stages,” one of the translated Facebook posts said.

Khelif’s next match is against Hungary’s Luca Anna Hamori in Saturday’s women’s 66-kilogram quarterfinals .

Matt Lavietes is a reporter for NBC Out.