![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE] | |
England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions >> CRF 1 Ltd v Banco Nacional De Cuba & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 1409 (19 November 2024) URL: https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2024/1409.html Cite as: [2024] EWCA Civ 1409 |
||
[New search]
[Context
]
[View without highlighting]
[Printable PDF version]
[Help]
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
COMMERCIAL COURT (KBD)
Mrs Justice Cockerill
Claim No. CL-2020-000092
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL |
||
B e f o r e :
LORD JUSTICE ARNOLD
and
LORD JUSTICE PHILLIPS
____________________
CRF 1 LIMITED |
Claimant/ Respondent |
|
| - and – |
||
(1) BANCO NACIONAL DE CUBA | Defendant/Appellant |
|
(2) THE REPUBLIC OF CUBA | Defendant |
____________________
(instructed by Rosenblatt) for the Claimant/Respondent ("
CRF")
Alison Macdonald KC, Anton Dudnikov and Mark Belshaw
(instructed by PCB Byrne LLP) for the Defendant/Appellant ("BNC")
Hearing dates: 24 and 25 July 2024
____________________
VERSION
OF APPROVED JUDGMENT
Crown Copyright ©
Lord Justice Phillips:
validly
and effectively assigned to
CRF
in 2019.
validly
assigned to
CRF
and accordingly dismissed BNC's challenge under CPR Part 11 to the jurisdiction of the English Courts. BNC now appeals that decision.
Cuba
in respect of a guarantee it gave of BNC's lability under the Istituto Banco Italiano loan. There is no appeal by
CRF
against that decision.
The essential facts
validly
assigned to and was held by the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China ("ICBC"). On 8 May 2019 ICBC requested that BNC give prior consent to the assignment of the Debts to
CRF,
a fund established for the purpose of acquiring and enforcing distressed
Cuban
sovereign debt.
CRF]
…" and asking for necessary documentation. At the bottom of the email was her typed name, Londa C. Martí.
CRF
on 31 July 2019, backdated to 13 June 2019. Thereafter
CRF
provided BNC with the "necessary documentation" referred to by Ms Martí. On 25 November 2019 Raul Eugenio Olivera Lozano, then BNC's Director of Operations, wrote on BNC's headed notepaper to confirm BNC's agreement to the Notice of Assignment. The letter was signed by Mr Lozano alone, with BNC's wet stamp.
CRF
sent a letter of claim to BNC. On 30 December 2019 Rene Lazo Fernandez, the President of BNC, replied to that letter, referring to the assignment executed by ICBC in favour of
CRF,
explaining the difficult economic situation facing
Cuba
and that BNC had agreed to pay all creditors participating in the refinancing agreements in 1983-1985 on a pari passu basis, meaning it could not currently pay
CRF.
CRF's
solicitors responded on 14 January 2020, asserting that the debts were not subject to or affected by any of the refinancing agreements and demanding payment.
The issues on the appeal
i) Ms Martí's email of 13 June 2019 was
valid
prior consent on behalf of BNC to the assignment of the Debts, rejecting BNC's contention that such consent required two "category A" signatures if it was to be an authorised act of BNC;
ii) in the alternative, if Ms Martí's email was unauthorised by BNC, Mr Fernandez, on behalf of BNC, ratified her action by his letters of 30 December 2019 and 27 January 2020;
iii) but if (contrary to her findings above) BNC did not provide
valid
prior consent, BNC did not withhold its consent for the purposes of clause 17 of the loan agreement. The Judge held that it was not appropriate to go on to consider whether any withholding would have been unreasonable;
iv) notice of the assignments was effectively given to BNC.
validity
of the notice of the assignments. By its Respondent's Notice,
CRF
contends (amongst other arguments referred to below) that the Judge was wrong not to find that, if BNC did not give prior consent, such consent was unreasonably withheld.
Was the 13 June 2019 letter authorised by BNC?
Cuban
law.
The relevant provisions of the law of
Cuba
Cuban
Civil Code, which provides that a person will be appointed a
voluntary
representative of another when he is empowered to carry out acts on behalf of the other pursuant to a power of attorney, and a legal representative of the other when the authority of the other is delegated to him in a legal manner.
"15. The President of [BNC], whilst exercising his functions, may grant the powers he deems necessary and delegate his faculties to other directors and functionaries of [BNC] …
17. In addition to the jurisdiction consigned to the aforementioned articles, the following apply, without prejudice to the remaining functions assigned to him by this Decree-Law and the Statutes:
a) to issue resolutions, instructions and other requirements of an obligatory nature for [BNC] and its branches …
c) to appoint the directors of [BNC], whose designation is not reserved to other senior management levels …
f) to delegate his functions to other directors and functionaries of [BNC]."
Cuba.
Pursuant to that provision, Resolution No. 1 of the BNC gave effect to BNC's Statutes, containing the following provisions as translated:
"CHAPTER III
ORGANISATION AND GOVERNMENT…
MANAGEMENT LEVELS AND THEIR HEADS …
Article 18: The President, when exercising his/her authority can grant the powers he deems necessary and delegate his/her authority to other managers and officials of the bank.
SECOND AND THIRD MANAGEMENT LEVELS
Article 40: Second and third level managers shall be in charge of the divisions and functions that are assigned to them and they shall be responsible for the direct management control and supervision of these.
Article 41: The following common duties, powers and functions shall also be their responsibility.
a) To be personally responsible for the completion of the tasks, and for exercising of the powers and functions of its division;
b) Represent his/her division;…
h) To issue binding instructions and other provisions within his/her sphere of competence; …
CHAPTER IV
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
ARTICLE 45: Authority to exercise specific powers or perform specific functions shall be delegated according to the following precepts; …
CHAPTERVII
…
EXTERNAL RELATIONS
ARTICLE 54: In its external relations the Bank shall always be represented by its President, or by the manager or officer to whom he has delegated that responsibility.
In addition, external relations can exist at thevarious
levels of management by the respective managers, or authorized official. In such cases, they only commit their respective positions or the organizational units dependent on these except in the case of managers and officials given the authority by the bank to sign documents in in its name."
"CHAPTER I
GENERAL PROVISIONS
SECTION 1: Bank powers of attorney may be conferred on certain officials and employees of [BNC], based on their functions and responsibilities, through the granting of use of banking signatures, so that they may act in the name and on behalf of such Bank under the rules herein and thus enter into any relevant banking transaction.
….
SECTION 3: Any signing authority shall be granted, revoked and amended by the President.
SECTION 4: Signatories of [BNC] may be classified as "A", "B" or "C", and each such signatory shall have the authority described below. Signatories may sign severally, or jointly and severally.
SECTION 5: Where a document is required to be signed by two signatories to bind the National Bank ofCuba
to any transaction, the signature by the first signatory shall be deemed to mean a confirmation that the relevant transaction has been fully reviewed, while the signature by the second signatory shall be deemed to confirm the legality, amount and date of execution of the transaction
….
CHAPTER II
AUTHORISATIONS AND USE OF SIGNATURES
….
SECTION 12: Two "A" and "B" joint signatures shall be required for all banking transactions that create an obligation for BNC, on the basis of the type of transactions and amount involved as described in Section 17 below.
….
SECTION 15: Both an "A" and a "B" joint signature, or two "A" or two "B" joint signatures shall in accordance with Section 17 below be required for the purposes of authorising and executing the following banking operations. …
d) to issue any comfort letters and guarantees;
e) to assign, endorse or order a protest of any bills;
…
j) to open and close accounts with other banks and of natural or legal persons located inCuba
or abroad;
k) to approve any accountingvouchers
and notices related to any of the above transactions;
l) To carry out any other banking operation in accordance with international standards…
SECTION 17: A banking transaction where a signature by BNC is required (Section 15 above) shall be signed as followed:
…
USD 5,000,001.00 and above Two "A" signatures"
The President of BNC, as the highest executive officer and legal representative of the Bank, has sole signing authority with respect to any banking transaction, regardless of the amount.
The provisions of Section 15 above shall be construed in the light of the thresholds in this Section 17
…
FINAL PROVISIONS
….
SECOND The Operations Management department shall keep a duly-updated registry of authorised signatories of [BNC]…"
Cuban
law and is intended to set out the relevant processes to be followed within BNC. At [336], however, the Judge noted that the Handbook "lacks legal status". Chapter 6 describes the operations carried out by the Foreign Debt Department, including the "Process for the Materialization of Assignments." The handbook notes that generally a communication is received from a bank, company or financial institution, explaining the intention to assign an amount of BNC debt to another entity. This request and its details are recorded, then the debt is
verified
by checks of the bank's records and requests for the production of certified documents (in particular as to the status of the assignee). The handbook then provides:
"If there is a positive result in all the aforementioned checks (includingverification
by the Register of Debt Assignments reflecting the balances of each bank classified by number of loans and year of renegotiation in the case of bank debt) a tele, email, SWIFT or fax is sent to the foreign party, informing him that it is accepted "in principle" your request and that you must send us a set of original and two copies of the official documents of the assignment duly signed by the buyer and the seller. …
When that document is received, it is checked:…
The document is also sent to:
• The legal department: they review the documents and inform the Foreign Debt Department, by means of a letter, if they are duly formalized in legal terms and if it is appropriate to proceed with the assignment according to the agreements, clauses and other details reflected in the documents.
If the legal letter, telex or message, the acceptance in principle and signature control with all other documentation requested with the necessary requirements are already contained in the file, then the assignment is ready to be materialized. Its materialization consists in sending both the "assignor" and the "assignee" (assignor and assignee) a copy of the initial document duly signed by theCuban
side (containing two authorized signatures of [BNC]) and a letter giving our consent for the "purchase - sale", leaving within the file that will work in our archives, a copy of this, together with the original documentation. This file is given an assignment number.
…
Once the assignment is materialized, it is then registered in the Register of Debt Assignments to maintain control of the balances of each bank, company and financial institution and, if necessary, to reconcile with the records of the [BNC]..."
Cuban
law proceeded from the original source materials and the light that could be shed on them by the expert evidence, duly evaluated. The Judge heard evidence from Dr Juan Mendoza Díaz, Professor of Procedural Law at the University of Havana, on behalf of BNC, and from Ms Hosanna Rodriguez Calvo, a qualified (but not currently practicing) lawyer in
Cuba,
on behalf of
CRF.
The Judge's analysis
very
different approaches at [302]-[304]:
"302. The Defendants' case is that:
i) The BNC Rules regulate (i) the conditions for the exercise of BNC's power to conduct banking operations that fall within the scope of the Rules; and/or (ii) the authority of BNC officials to act in the name of and on behalf of BNC;
ii) Approval of an assignment of BNC's debt (and, insofar as it is relevant, of aCuban
State guarantee) is a banking operation within the meaning of Article 15(l) and/or 12 and/or 17 of the BNC Rules, and thus requires two (in the case of Article 17, Category A) signatures;
iii) The signature requirements imposed by the BNC Rules cannot be fulfilled by the application of a stamp or seal.
303.CRF,
for its part, contended that:
i) The President of BNC may delegate his power by appointing officials to positions within BNC and delegating his authority to those officials to perform acts inherent in their functions;
ii) Mr Lozano and Ms Martí were so appointed to positions within BNC and the President of BNC delegated his authority to consent to the assignment of historicCuban
sovereign debt to them.
304. As can be seen from this summary of the parties' cases here the parties are a long way from each other conceptually as well as on the details."
CRF,
before passing on to consider the impact which the Signature Rules have on that approach.
"i) Articles 40 and 41(a) of the BNC Statutes mean that Mr Lozano and Ms Martí were authorised to exercise the powers and functions of the Foreign Debt Office. Each of them was responsible for the direct management, control and supervision of the Foreign Debt Office and of the functions assigned to that office. Moreover, as the Defendants' witnesses accepted, one of the common duties, powers and functions was to be personally responsible for the completion of the tasks, and exercising of the powers and functions of the Foreign Debt Office;
ii) Articles 41(b) and 41(h) mean that Mr Lozano and Ms Martí were responsible for representing their division and issuing binding instructions and other provisions within his/her sphere of competence."
Cuban
law alleged which go to the actions of Ms Martí on 13 June 2019 (or Mr Lozano on 25 November 2019).
valued
above US$5m, two category A signatures were required. Ms Martí's email of 13 June 2019, of course, did not have any signatures, just her typed name.
view
that it was not, setting out her written evidence in relation to Section 12 to the effect that the act of giving consent did not fall within that section because it did not create an obligation on BNC. It merely permits the existing creditor to assign its existing rights to a new creditor.
"..she was not asked, and did not accept, the proposition that consent to an assignment between a creditor and a third party was a banking operation which attracted a need for compliance with these rules."
view
that the Signature Rules applied to all actions of BNC's authorised employees, given that Section 12 is clear that the two A/B signatures requirement is not a blanket obligation but rather one which is triggered by banking transactions which "create an obligation". At [326] the Judge stated that Professor Mendoza's approach seemed both impractical, as requiring a degree of formality and delay which would be odd in cases where a transaction effectively made no difference to the Banks's bottom line, and contrary to the understanding of those operating in BNC at the time.
value
did not undermine Ms Rodriguez's argument that consent to an assignment was not a banking operation within Section 12 because it did not create an obligation:
"It was suggested that the fact that, if BNC has an empty account with another bank and wished to close it, that still requires two signatures, even though thevalue
of the transaction is zero (as Ms Rodriguez accepted) affected this analysis. But this is to ignore the terms of Article 15 which specifically defined operations which require signatures - regardless of whether they are categorized for the purposes of Article 12 as "banking transactions that create an obligation". Article 15(j) stipulates that signatures are necessary "to open and close accounts with other banks and of natural or legal persons located in
Cuba
or abroad."
The arguments on appeal
CRF's
first response, however, was that BNC had misunderstood the Judge's analysis and her decision. It contended that the Judge recognised that the authority of BNC to perform an act could be bestowed either through delegation by the President to a particular official in respect of matters within their remit, or by one or more officer complying with the Signature Rules, an alternative route by which the President conferred authority in respect of specified transactions. In relation to the email of 13 June 2019, the Judge held that Ms Martí had delegated authority (through her appointment as Manager of the Foreign Debt Office) to give prior consent to an assignment and (
CRF
argued) that signatures were not required for that action, contending that the Judge's consideration of the Signature Rules was primarily in relation to Mr Lozano's letter of 15 November 2019, formally documenting the consent to assignment, rather than giving prior consent. By its Respondent's Notice,
CRF
argued that, if that was not the Judge's analysis, her decision should be upheld on that basis.
(i)
CRF's
contention as to the Judge's reasoning
CRF
placed much reliance upon a paragraph of the judgment at [246], in which the Judge said:
"An argument was also deployed by reference to the supposed need for two signatures. However this is an argument which conflates two different issues. If consent comes at 13 June, the evidence as to two signatures, the requirements for it and (to the extent relevant)CRF's
knowledge of it pertains to a later stage. That is reflected in the process prescribed by the BNC Handbook. There is no document or evidence which suggests that two signatures were ever required for this preliminary consent. The witness evidence relied upon by the Defendants as to the number of signatures ("Mr Lozano's mistake") pertains to the 25 November document".
CRF
submitted that, taken with the Judge's later finding at [320] that Ms Martí had delegated authority to consent to the assignments, her finding that there was no requirement for two signatures at [246] was a complete answer to BNC's appeal.
CRF
that has misunderstood the judgment in this respect. Paragraph [246] is within the section dealing with whether the 13 June 2019 email amounted to prior consent as a matter of fact assuming authority to bind BNC. The Judge made that plain at [222] and reached her conclusion on the factual question at [232]. She then dealt with further arguments as to why the 13 June 2019 email was not prior consent (as a matter of fact), including that prior consent required two signatures. At [246] the Judge rejected that contention as a matter of evidence (and not as a matter of
Cuban
law). If that is not clear enough from the context, the Judge made it crystal clear at the end of the section by stating at [250]:
"This issue of prior consent is purely factual; it is the question which would be asked if everything took place according to English Law. At the next stages it is necessary to consider whether… Ms Martí/Mr Lozano's acts were authorized, which includes a consideration of whether consent as a matter ofCuban
law required more than was given."
valid
prior consent to assignment of the Debts. The Judge did not suggest that her consideration of the Signature Rules was in the alternative to her finding that Ms Martí had delegated authority. On the contrary, the Judge recognised that such authority might (and, implicitly, would) be subject to any requirement in the Rules as to how such authority was to be exercised.
(ii) The meaning of "banking operation" in Section 15(l)
v
Lopag Trust Reg [2023] UKPC 16, [2023]1WLR 3494, the case falls close to the end of the spectrum in which findings of fact in relation to foreign law were to be treated, on appeal, in the same way as findings of simple fact.
"8.48. In my opinion, Resolution 10/2016 [the Signature Rules] …does not apply to consents to the assignment of sovereign debt, for the following reasons.
8.49. Section 12 of Resolution 10/2016 states that two 'A' and 'B' signatures shall be required for all banking transactions that create an obligation for BNC, on the basis of the type of transaction and amount involved as described in Section 17 of Resolution 10/2016. Assignments do not, in myview,
create an obligation within the meaning of Article 12. Therefore, the signature rules set out in Resolution 10/2016 do not apply to assignments.
8.50. The types of transaction are listed in Section 15 of the Resolution 10/2016. Section 15 states that both an "A" and a "B" joint signature, or two "A" or two "B" joint signatures are required, depending on the monetaryvalue
of the transaction as set out in Section 17, for the purposes of "authorising and executing" certain listed banking operations including operations "(f) to borrow and/or grant any short, medium and long-term loans or financing" or "(g) to receive and authorise any sight and term deposits."
8.51 The relevant operations do not include the act of BNC giving its consent to an assignment for one or more of the following reasons:
8.51.1 The act of giving consent to an assignment is distinct from the assignment itself. The act of giving of consent to an assignment is the performance of an existing contractual obligation under an existing loan agreement. The act of consent, without more, does not create an obligation on BNC. It merely permits the existing creditor to assign its existing rights to a new creditor.
8.51.2 The assignment itself also does not create any new obligation for BNC orCuba.
The assignments only change the name of the creditor in relation to a pre-existing debt obligation.
8.51.3 The provision of consent to an assignment or the assignment itself does not have any monetaryvalue."
view
that consent to an assignment did not fall within that section because it did not create an obligation for BNC. She did not directly address Section 15(l). Her reference to Section 15 was to suggest that that section listed the types of transaction which fell within Section 12. But as BNC pointed out to the Judge and on this appeal, certain of the transactions listed in Section 15 (e.g. closing a bank account or approving a
voucher)
might not involve BNC accepting an obligation, yet two signatures were required. As set out above, at [327] the Judge rejected the
view
that Section 15 was listing transactions which fell within Section 12, stating that Section 15 "specifically defined operations which require signatures".
"Q. If we look at the next paragraph, (l), it says:
"l) to carry out any other banking operation in accordance with international standards."
So that covers any other banking operation which is not already listed in the paragraphs above; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. So what I would like to explore with you, please, first, is how these provisions might apply to an assignment of debt.
I think we can agree that an assignment involves three parties: an assignor, who is the existing creditor; the assignee, who is the new creditor; and the debtor. Correct?
A. Yes. Correct.
Q. Now, let's assume that, in order for the assignment to be effective as against the debtor, the debtor's approval is required. So can we please make that assumption. If approval is given, then the obligation that was previously owed to the assignor is now owed to the assignee. So that's the hypothetical scenario I would like you to consider, please.
A. Yes. Could you reformulate the question? I think you're referring to consent to the debt assignment: is that right?
Q. Yes, that's right.
A. Yes.
Q. So in that scenario, the giving or withholding of approval to the assignment by the debtor is a banking operation within the meaning of 15(l), which we have looked at; do you agree?
A. It is a banking operation - - well, that point (l) is a wide norm which could involve any banking operation in line with international practices.
…. [an interruption by a technician]
Q. So I'll start again.
We were looking at 15(l) and we were considering the assignment scenario, and my question is: if something like approval of accountingvouchers
and notices is a banking operation, approval of an assignment is likewise a banking operation, isn't it?
A. Could you reformulate the question, because I didn't get it all with the two different aspects that you mentioned. Are you referring to (l) now?
Q. Well - -
A. To carry out a banking operation (inaudible) - -
Q. Well, I am referring to (l), but I am also referring to (k), and I'll try to reformulate.
A. Si.
Q. If, under (k) something like approval of an accountingvoucher
or a notice constitutes a banking operation, then it follows, doesn't it, that under (l), approval of an assignment would likewise be a banking operation?
A. According to the regulation, yes, it could be considered the same.
Q. Yes. Well, it is the same. That is correct, isn't it?
A. Yes."
CRF
contended it was open to the Judge to find that Ms Rodriguez did not understand that she was being asked about consent to an assignment, but rather misunderstood that she was being asked about the assignment itself. I see no merit in that argument. The questioner was careful to ensure that Ms Rodriguez understood that the questions concerned the application of Section 15(l) to approval of an assignment (as opposed to the assignment itself) and Ms Rodriguez herself
volunteered
that he was referring to consent to an assignment. At the end of the passage Ms Rodriguez expressly and clearly confirmed that consent to an assignment would be considered to be a banking operation within Section 15(l).
CRF
suggested that this confirmation should be discounted due to the interruption recorded in the transcript, but that is untenable: the questioner restated the question
very
clearly and Ms Rodriguez gave her confirmation that approval of an assignment was a banking operation and then repeated her affirmation.
"…the effect of [Section] 15 of BNC Resolution 10/2016 is that it applied to all banking operations by BNC. In this sense, clause (l) of [Section]15 acts as a catch-all provision designed to cover all banking operations of BNC…"
viewed
the evidence of both experts through the lens of Section 12 of the Signature Rules, and did not appreciate that, in the end, both foreign experts were agreed that Section 15(l) applied to any banking operation, which included giving consent to an assignment.
viewed
in an international context (an aspect of the wording of Section 15(l) which neither party emphasised). In the absence of any specific
Cuban
law material or learning on the point, it would be surprising if "banking operation" in Section 15(l) excluded that commonplace action taken by banks.
(iii)
CRF's
alternative basis for upholding the Judge's decision on authority
CRF
contends that the answer is that it had no effect.
"Bank powers of attorney may be conferred on certain officials and employee of [BNC], based on their functions and responsibilities, through the granting of use of banking signatures, so that they may act in the name and on behalf of such Bank under the rules herein and thus enter into any relevant banking transaction."
via
the Signature Rules, but that in oral evidence he (realistically) accepted that delegation could be done other than
via
the rules, recognising that the President of BNC may delegate by appointing officials to positions. The Judge noted at [312] the title of the Signature Rules does not seem to indicate that they are prescribing the scope of the power, merely setting out rules to operate on authorisations.
CRF's
further alternative argument that BNC unreasonably withheld its consent to assignment of the debts.
Notice of assignment
"Each communication under this letter shall be made by telex otherwise in writing. Each communication or document to be delivered to any party under this letter shall be sent to that party at the telex number or address, and marked for the attention of the person (if any), from time to time designated by that party for the purpose of this letter. The initial telex number, address and person (if any) so designated by each party are set out under its name in Part I of this letter."
CRF's
then current offices in Havana on 14 November 2019, for the attention of Ms Lozano and Ms Martí. Delivery was notarised and Mr Lozano subsequently confirmed acceptance of the documentation. The assignments were in due course registered by Ms Martí in BNC's Register of Debt Assignments.
"The relevant clauses in the agreements did not on their true construction apply to the giving of notice of assignment under section 136 of the Law of property Act 1925. In any event, the clauses were complied with. Notice of the assignments were delivered to BNC…at BNC's offices in Havana, which were the place for delivery of letters to BNC…under the clauses in the agreements referred to because BNC…had indicated to market participants that that was where such letters should be delivered to."
CRF
had expressly pleaded that case at paragraph 46 of its Reply and there was ample evidence of other assignments of
Cuban
sovereign debt to justify the Judge's finding that BNC had informed participants in the market (including ICBC and
CRF)
of its new address for communications in respect of such debts. Further, the Judge made a finding at [139] that Mr Lozano had asked that the documentation (including the notice of assignments) be delivered to him at the new address [139]. I do not accept that the Judge's finding was irrational or not open to her on the evidence.
variation
of the loan agreements, contrary to clause 19B of each agreement. I see no merit in that argument given that clause 20A expressly provides for the designation of contact details from time to time, without stipulating any formality. Such designation was pursuant to the clause, not a
variation
of its terms.
validity
of the delivery of the notice of the assignments. In
view
of that conclusion it is unnecessary to consider the merit of the Judge's finding that notice of assignment for the purposes of section 136 did not, in order to be
valid
and effective, have to comply with the contractual provision for giving notice under the relevant agreement.
Conclusion
validly
assigned to
CRF,
I do not consider that it is necessary to address BNC's challenge to the Judge's contingent finding that, if the assignments were not
valid, BNC ratified them by its subsequent correspondence.
Lord Justice Arnold
Lady Justice Asplin
Note 1 Appointed to that office on 1 August 2018 by Resolution No. 27/2018 of the President of BNC. [Back]