[2025] EWHC 908 (Ch)

There are two applications before me. The first in time is the application of the Claimant (“HNW”) dated 8 April 2024 which seeks, amongst other things, to amend the Particulars of Claim and to strike out the Defence and Counterclaim. The second is the application of the Defendant (“Ms Lawrence”) dated 28 August 2024 which seeks, amongst other things to strike out the claim. HNW was represented at the hearing by Charles Sinclair of Counsel and Ms Lawrence by Michael Hartman of Counsel. Ms Lawrence has at various points in the proceedings acted as a litigant in person.

HNW is claiming possession of the property known as and situated at Former Social Club, Horton Lane, West Park Road, Epsom KT19 8PH registered with Title Number SY829927 (the “Property”), together with payment of an amount alleged to be owing to HNW pursuant to a first charge registered against the Property at the Land Registry on 3 December 2018 (“the Charge”) securing monies advanced to Ms Lawrence pursuant to a loan agreement which it contends was made on 30 November 2018. I will refer to the agreement contended for by HNW as “the Loan Agreement”.

HNW’s case is, in summary, that pursuant to the Loan Agreement a loan of £1,520,000 was made to the Ms Lawrence for a term of nine months, secured by first and second charges on ten properties owned by Ms Lawrence, including the Property; that in the course of 2019 and 2020 further advances of £284,000 were made to Ms Lawrence; that Ms Lawrence did not make all of the interest payments under the Loan Agreement and, the term having expired, Ms Lawrence failed to repay the balance of the monies loaned. HNW seeks possession of the Property and payment of £3,535,965.82 plus further interest pursuant to the Loan Agreement.

Ms Lawrence advances a number of different arguments by way of defence and counterclaim. She denies that she agreed to the terms of Loan Agreement and contends that the Loan Agreement and further advances were agreed to by her as a result of duress and/or undue influence. She also contends that, on the correct construction of the Loan Agreement and the Charge, HNW does not have title to sue. She counterclaims an unspecified amount by way of damages in respect of loss and damage which she claims to have suffered as a result of HNW’s unlawful conduct.