Intensity Holdings S.A. v Stratton Mortgage Funding 2019-1 Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 104 (Ch) – Rooftop named as fifth defendant and as legal title holder
What happened: Proceedings in the High Court concerning two securitisations of mortgages and loans known as the Stratton Securitisation and the Clavis Securitisation, and an August 2022 transaction under which the securitised assets were transferred to a new issuing vehicle, Stratton Hawksmoor 2022-1 Plc. Rooftop Mortgages Limited was the fifth defendant. The claim was brought in the name of Intensity Holdings S.A., which did not appear and was not represented at the hearing. The defendants applied to strike the claim out.
What the court decided: The claim was struck out. The judgment makes no finding of any kind against Rooftop Mortgages Limited; Rooftop was one of the defendants applying to strike the claim out.
A determination made by a court, regulator or Ombudsman and recorded in a published document.
Source details
- Source type
- Court judgment
- Source
- High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Business List (Ch), Mr Justice Miles, 12 January 2023
- Date
- 12 January 2023
- Reference
- [2023] EWHC 104 (Ch); claim no. BL-2022-001355
- Mortgage type
- Residential
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Organisations
- Rooftop Mortgages Limited, Stratton Mortgage Funding 2019-1 Plc, Clavis Securities Plc, Bluestone Mortgages Limited, Kensington Mortgage Company Limited, Stratton Hawksmoor 2022-1 Plc
- Source quality
- Official source
- Last checked
- 2 September 2026
- Added
- 2 September 2026
What happened
Proceedings in the High Court concerning two securitisations of mortgages and loans known as the Stratton Securitisation and the Clavis Securitisation, and an August 2022 transaction under which the securitised assets were transferred to a new issuing vehicle, Stratton Hawksmoor 2022-1 Plc. Rooftop Mortgages Limited was the fifth defendant. The claim was brought in the name of Intensity Holdings S.A., which did not appear and was not represented at the hearing. The defendants applied to strike the claim out.
What the claimant argued
The claim, and two earlier related claims, sought relief including a declaration that Bluestone, Kensington and Rooftop held the mortgage portfolio on bare trust for two claimed creditors, and an injunction restraining those defendants from dealing with the portfolio. The judgment records that those claims had been struck out in August 2022.
What the court decided
Mr Justice Miles recorded at paragraph 12 that the fifth defendant, Rooftop Mortgages Limited, holds the legal title to certain residential mortgages previously securitised by Stratton, in consequence of the restructuring described in the judgment. The judge found that the claim before him had been brought by or at the behest of Mr Rizwan Hussain on the basis of a fabrication, that it was a continuation of earlier proceedings struck out as totally without merit, and that it was an abuse of the process of the court.
Outcome
- The claim was struck out. The judgment makes no finding of any kind against Rooftop Mortgages Limited; Rooftop was one of the defendants applying to strike the claim out.
Key extracts
“The fifth defendant, Rooftop Mortgages Limited (“Rooftop”), holds the legal title to certain residential mortgages previously securitised by Stratton.”
Mr Justice Miles, [2023] EWHC 104 (Ch), paragraph 12
“(5) ROOFTOP MORTGAGES LIMITED … Defendants/Applicants”
Case heading, claim no. BL-2022-001355
Why this record may be relevant
This judgment is a Tier 1 source in which a court records, as a matter of background fact, that Rooftop Mortgages Limited holds legal title to residential mortgages previously securitised by another entity. It concerns the structure of one securitisation and says nothing about the ownership of any other individual mortgage, and it records no allegation or finding about Rooftop's conduct.
Source
High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts, Business List (Ch), Mr Justice Miles, 12 January 2023
View original sourceJudgment retrieved and read in full from the National Archives Find Case Law service on 2 September 2026. This record corrects an earlier entry in this archive which stated that Rooftop was not a party to the judgment; see the corrections log.
If you believe this record is inaccurate or incomplete, see corrections and right of reply.