Section 6 – Limitations as to assignability: general
36.Subsection (1) continues the effect of any current enactment or rule of law that prevents the assignation of a claim. For example, the assignation of a claim to certain social security payments is barred by section 187 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992.
37.Subsection (2) excludes the preservation of other enactments or rules of law which contradict provision made in this Part of the Act that allows for the assignation to be effective. In particular, it was previously a rule of law that future claims could not be assigned (due to the impossibility of intimation until a debtor existed). That rule of law is now displaced by section 1(4) and that prevails over section 6(1).
38.Subsection (3) makes it clear that the debtor and the holder of the claim can agree (or a person giving a unilateral undertaking can state) that the claim cannot be assigned, or cannot be assigned in part. This is known as an anti-assignation (or, following England and Wales, a non-assignment) clause and is a permitted clause in a contract or undertaking.
39.Subsection (4) provides that although the language of “the holder of the claim” is used in subsection (3), this includes a person who is not yet the holder at the time of agreement. This allows anti-assignation agreements to be entered into in anticipation of becoming the holder of a claim (for example, because the assignation is of future claims).
40.Subsection (5) has the effect that subsection (3) is subject to any enactment which renders anti-assignation clauses ineffective, such as sections 1 and 2 of the Small Business, Enterprise and Employment Act 2015.
41.As with section 5, this section does not make express provision as to how any agreement or statement is to be constituted.
