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 that the bank was under a duty to provide the original signed agreement or even a copy of it. Nor was it necessary for the debtor’s solicitors to seethe agreement to check whether their client was liable under it. Nothing was said by the debtor as to why he might not be liable. Because CPR 31.16 (3)(a) and (b) require the applicant to show that proceedings may well ensue, the applicant has to show some sort of prima facie case which is more than a merely speculative ‘punt’. That is what any claim would be here. The applicant in the present case had not begun to demonstrate that his agreement with the bank was unenforceable and, it was not necessary for him to have the disclosure to bring whatever claim he might wish to bring. The applicant had not shown that proceedings may well ensue.
Judges:
Flaux J
Citations:
[2010] EWHC 1900 (Comm)
Links:
Statutes:
Consumer Credit (Cancellation Notices and Copies of Documents) Regulations 1983 3(2)(b), Consumer Credit Act 1974 78, Senior Courts Act 1981 33
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Black v Sumitomo Corporation CA 3-Dec-2001
The claimants proposed pre-action discovery which was resisted.
Held: A purpose of pre-action disclosure is to assist those who need disclosure as a vital step in deciding whether to litigate at all or to provide a vital ingredient in the . .
Cited – Rose v Lynx Express Ltd. and Bridgepoint Capital (Nominees) Ltd CA 7-Apr-2004
In an request for pre-action discovery it was plainly wrong for the court to seek to decide in advance any element of the virtues of the case.
Held: The appeal should be allowed. The case was arguable and should be allowed to proceed.
Cited – Trouw UK v Mitsui UK ComC 2006
. .
Cited – BSW Ltd v Balltec Ltd ChD 11-Apr-2006
Pre-action disclosure. The test of a properly arguable case with a real prospect of success is the same test as is set out in CPR 13.3(1) and 24.2 in relation to setting aside judgments in default and resisting summary judgment respectively. The . .
Applied – Carey v HSBC Bank plc, Yunis v Barclays Bank plc and similar QBD 23-Dec-2009
(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 . .
Cited – Pineway Ltd v London Mining Plc ComC 20-May-2010
Application was made for an order for pre-action disclosure. Having considered Black v Sumitomo Steele J said: But although the likelihood of proceedings as such is not material, it does not follow in my judgment that the existence of a prima . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Consumer
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.421030
