Forbes (Appellant) v Seculink Limited (Respondent)

Case summary

Case ID

UKSC/2025/0104

Parties

Appellant(s)

David Forbes

Respondent(s)

Seculink Limited

Issue

Did the Court of Appeal error in holding that: The principal sum under a secured debt, which has fallen due and remains unpaid, does not constitute “arrears in respect of secured debt” so as to be covered by the protections of a moratorium under regulation 5(4)(a) of the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020.

Facts

This is a case about whether, when an individual receives mental health crisis treatment, a mortgage debt can be enforced against them. In July 2016 and October 2018 Mr Forbes entered into loan agreements respectively for £1,360,000 with Interbay Funding Limited with a legal charge over a single property; and £260,000 with Seculink secured by a charge on five properties. Neither loan sum was repaid and the Respondents started possession proceedings. On 17 June 2021 the Mr Forbes and Seculink agreed a compromise, with Mr Forbes agreeing to make two payments covering the debt and interest that had accrued totalling £589,000. If the payments were made, then the loan would be discharged and the charges removed. If they were not made, then Seculink would be entitled to £600,000 and to restore the possession proceedings. Mr Forbes did not pay either of the instalments. On 18 April 2022 Seculink made an application to enforce the amount agreed and for an order of possession. On 22 April 2022 Mr Forbes entered into a moratorium under the Debt Respite Scheme (Breathing Space Moratorium and Mental Health Crisis Moratorium) (England and Wales) Regulations 2020 (“the Regulations”). He has been subject to it ever since. Subsequently, on 9 May 2023 Interbay applied for an order for possession. This was granted by the County Court on 24 July 2023. A subsequent appeal by Mr Forbes was dismissed. On 21 April 2023, Seculink made an application seeking determinations on whether the principal sum under the loan to Mr Forbes was not covered by the moratorium on the basis that it was a non-eligible debt. On 2 January 2024, in relation to the Seculink proceedings the County Court found it lacked jurisdiction to review the issue. This was overturned by the High Court, holding that it did have jurisdiction, and finding that the principal sum was not a moratorium debt. Both the Interbay and Seculink High Court decisions were appealed and heard together by the Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeals. Mr Forbes now appeals to the Supreme Court.

Date of issue

2 July 2025

Case origin

PTA

Linked cases

Back to top