Du Plessis v Fontgary Leisure Parks Ltd: CA 2 Apr 2012

The claimant, who owned a holiday mobile home on the respondent’s site challenged the raising of site fees, saying that the contract was unfair. Previously all site fees were equal within the site, but the respondent had introduced a scheme which reflected the differing grades of pitches. The judge had rejected her argument that the fees selected, their method of calculation, and the contract were unfair.
Held: The appeal failed, and the contract had been validly terminated by the respondent on the claimant failing to pay the new licence fees. The term was not unfair. The claimant had not produced evidence of any excess value paid, and she had had full opportunity to read the contract before signing it. The grading itself had been carried out in a fair manner. The arbitration agreement about which complaint was made had not prevented the claimant doing as she had, and seeking the court’s decision.
Similarly the arbitration agreement, which excluded the claimant from taking such an issue to arbitration on her own was not unfair. Such an arbitration could only take place, if it was requested by 51% of caravan owners affected by the increase. There was sense and commercial purpose in the provision.
Ward, Lloyd, Jackson LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 409
Bailii
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Arbitration Act 1996, Unfair Arbitration Agreements (Specified Amount) Order 1999
England and Wales
Citing:
CitedStroud v Weir Associates CA 1987
The court was asked to set pitch fees on a registered mobile home site. The site owner had sought to rely upon the fact of the order which cut from 15 per cent to 10 per cent the maximum commission chargeable by a site owner on an occupier’s . .
CitedDirector General of Fair Trading v First National Bank HL 25-Oct-2001
The House was asked whether a contractual provision for interest to run after judgment as well as before in a consumer credit contract led to an unfair relationship.
Held: The term was not covered by the Act, and was not unfair under the . .

Cited by:
CitedAJ Building and Plastering Ltd v Turner and Others QBD 11-Mar-2013
An insurance company had engaged a main contractor to handle repairs to houses insured under its policies. The contractor had engaged the claimant subcontractor to carry out the works at the defendants’ homes, but then went into insolvent . .

These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 24 March 2021; Ref: scu.452410