The High Court ruled that a mental health crisis moratorium did not prevent receivers from selling property used to secure a company loan, as the debt being enforced was owed by the company rather than the individual owner.The case involved Together Commercial Finance and Ameycroft Leisure, where a £2.4 million loan was granted in 2023.

The company’s director, Stuart Slack, personally guaranteed the debt, while his son Matthew Slack provided additional security by charging his property, Farley Meadow View.After Ameycroft defaulted, receivers appointed by Together sought to sell Farley Meadow View to recover the debt.Matthew Slack claimed the sale was prohibited under a mental health crisis moratorium he entered in 2026.However, Judge Jonathan Klein clarified that the moratorium protected only personal debts, not company obligations.The property secured the company’s debt, not Slack’s personal liabilities, allowing the receivers to proceed with the sale.The court also criticized the drafting of the Debt Respite Scheme regulations, highlighting ambiguities in their application.This ruling underscores the distinction between personal and corporate financial responsibilities in legal enforcement cases.