Kapoor v National Westminster Bank and another [2011] EWCA Civ 1083, [2011] All ER (D) 42 (Oct)
It was settled law that an equitable assignee of debt was entitled in its own right and name to bring proceedings for the debt. The equitable assignee would usually be required to join the assignor to the proceedings in order to ensure that the debtor was not exposed to double recovery, but that was a purely procedural requirement and could be dispensed with by the court. By contrast, the assignor could not bring proceedings to recover the assigned debt in the assignor’s own name for the assignor’s own account. The assignor could sue as trustee for the assignee if the assignee agreed, and, in that event the claim had to disclose the assignor’s representative capacity.
In any other case, the assignor had to join the assignee, not because of a mere procedural rule but as a matter of substantive law in view of the insufficiency of the assignor’s title. A nominee chairing a creditors’ meeting called to consider the approval of an individual voluntary arrangement should recognise the undisputed assignee of
