(Manchester Mercantile Court) The court considered the effects in detail where a bank was unable to comply with a request under section 78 of the 1974 Act to provide a copy of the agreement signed by the client.
Held: The court set out to give guidance on these issues. A photocopy of the signed document was not required, and a reconstruction would do, though as matter of good practice and so as not to mislead the debtor it is clearly desirable that the creditor should explain that it is providing a reconstituted as opposed to a physical copy of the executed agreement. The document produced need not be in a condition such that if it were signed it would be satisfy the requirements for regulation. What mattered was that it provided what was needed clearly and without misleading the debtor. Also, regulation 7 requires a copy of the executed agreement in its original form as well as a statement of the terms as they are at the time of the request.
Waksman QC J set out costs principles on a discontinuance: ‘(1) when a claimant discontinues the proceedings, there is a presumption by reason of CPR 38.6 that the defendant should recover his costs; the burden is on the claimant to show a good reason for departing from that position;
(2) the fact that the claimant would or might well have succeeded at trial is not itself a sufficient reason for doing so;
(3) however, if it is plain that the claim would have failed, that is an additional factor in favour of applying the presumption;
(4) the mere fact that the claimant’s decision to discontinue may have been motivated by practical, pragmatic or financial reasons as opposed to a lack of confidence in the merits of the case will not suffice to displace the presumption;
(5) if the claimant is to succeed in displacing the presumption he will usually need to show a change of circumstances to which he has not himself contributed;
(6) however, no change in circumstances is likely to suffice unless it has been brought about by some form of unreasonable conduct on the part of the defendant which in all the circumstances provides a good reason for departing from the rule.’
Waksman QC J
[2009] EWHC 3417 (QB), Times 25-Jan-2010, [2010] Bus LR 1142, [2009] CTLC 103
Bailii
Consumer Credit Act 1974 61 78 189, The Consumer Credit (Agreements) Regulations 1983, The Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – In re Hewer 1882
A true copy of a document was provided, but it was said that it could not be a true copy for an error as to the description of monthly payments.
Held: Bacon CJ said that a true copy did not necessarily need to be an exact copy: ‘but that it . .
Cited – Wilson v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry; Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (No 2) HL 10-Jul-2003
The respondent appealed against a finding that the provision which made a loan agreement completely invalid for lack of compliance with the 1974 Act was itself invalid under the Human Rights Act since it deprived the respondent of its property . .
Cited – Dimond v Lovell HL 12-May-2000
A claimant sought as part of her damages for the cost of hiring a care whilst her own was off the road after an accident caused by the defendant. She agreed with a hire company to hire a car, but payment was delayed until the claim was settled.
Cited – Burchell v Thompson CA 1920
A printed form of bill of sale set out that in consideration of andpound;250 being ‘now paid by the grantees to’ and then identifying a third person ‘at the request of the grantor’ chattels were assigned by way of security for the repayment of the . .
Cited – Barras v Aberdeen Steam Trawling and Fishing Co HL 17-Mar-1933
The court looked at the inference that a statute’s draughtsman could be assumed when using a phrase to rely on a known interpretation of that phrase.
Viscount Buckmaster said: ‘It has long been a well established principle to be applied in the . .
Cited – Lloyds Bank v Mitchell CC 13-Sep-2009
(Leeds County Court) The defendant sought to escape liability under a consumer credit agreement saying that the bank had failed to provide a true copy of the agreement as required by the Act.
Held: A strict requirement that the bank produce . .
Cited – Huntpast v Leadbetter 1993
It is crucial to the working of the Act that the parties know at the date when they make the agreement whether or not it is a regulated agreement. . .
Cited – McGinn v Grangewood Securities Ltd CA 23-Apr-2002
The lender used part of the loan to repay a small amount of arrears of the claimant on another loan. The part so used was not part of the objective of the loan, but one of the costs of obtaining it.
Held: The deduction was properly part of the . .
Cited – Rowlands v Hodson CA 8-Oct-2009
. .
Cited – McGuffick v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ComC 6-Oct-2009
Requirements for Enforcing Consumer Loan Agreement
The claimant challenged the validity of a loan agreement with his bank as a regulated consumer credit agreement. After default, the lender failed to satisfy a request for a copy of the agreement under section 77. The bank said that though it could . .
Cited – Khodari v Al Tamimi QBD 18-Dec-2008
Claim for repayment of the balance of eighteen loans said to have been made to the Defendant. The total loaned was about pounds 1,125,000. Less repayments, and including an additional 10 percent he claims to be entitled to on the money advanced, his . .
Cited by:
Applied – Kneale v Barclays Bank Plc (T/A Barclaycard) ComC 23-Jul-2010
The bank appealed against an order for pre-action dicslosure and payment of the costs to date of its customers request for copies of the agreement under which it sought payment, and otherwise.
Held: After Carey it was not to be argued . .
Appeal from – Brookes v HSBC Bank Plc CA 29-Mar-2011
The appellant had failed in his challenge to the bank’s imposition of charges. . .
Cited – Fresenius Kabi Deutschland Gmbh and Others v Carefusion 303 Inc CA 8-Nov-2011
The parties had litigated the validity of a patent. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Consumer
Updated: 12 January 2022; Ref: scu.384472
