In Together Commercial Finance Ltd v Slack, the High Court considered the interaction between a mental health crisis moratorium under the Debt Respite Scheme and a lender’s ability to enforce security over property charged by a third party.
Together had advanced a £2.4 million loan to Ameycroft Leisure Ltd, secured by, among other things, a legal charge granted by Mr Slack over his property. Following the borrower’s default and liquidation, LPA receivers were appointed and sought to sell the charged property. Mr Slack subsequently entered a mental health crisis moratorium and argued that a sale would constitute prohibited enforcement action.
HHJ Klein held that the receivers were entitled to proceed with the sale. Central to the decision was the distinction between Mr Slack’s personal obligations under the charge and the company’s indebtedness. On the proper construction of the security documents, the charge secured only the company’s liabilities to Together, not Mr Slack’s own covenant to pay.
The court concluded that, although Mr Slack’s personal liability under the charge was capable of being a qualifying and moratorium debt, the company’s debt was not a moratorium debt for the purposes of the regulations. As the charge secured only the company’s debt, any enforcement of the security was not enforcement action “in relation to” or “in respect of” a moratorium debt. Accordingly, the moratorium did not prevent the receivers from selling the property and any sale would not be void.
The judgment also contains criticism of the drafting of the Debt Respite Scheme Regulations, describing several provisions as problematic and difficult to interpret. Nevertheless, the decision provides welcome clarity for insolvency practitioners and secured lenders: Where security secures a debt that is not itself a moratorium debt, a mental health crisis moratorium will not impede enforcement of that security.
Together Commercial Finance Ltd v Slack [2026] EWHC 1732
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.