swarb.co.uk - law index
These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.
Consumer - From: 2000 To: 2000
This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.
Oceano Grupo Editorial SA v Quintero; ECJ 2000 - [2000] ECR I-4941
Regina v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Ex Parte Thomson Holidays Ltd Times, 12 January 2000
12 Jan 2000
CA
Judicial Review, Commercial, Consumer
Regulations made by the Secretary of State which purported to restrict the range of contracts which could be made between tour operators and travel agents were beyond his powers. The ability to make such regulations followed directly only from a report prepared by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, and in this case the regulations went beyond the findings, and were to that extent ultra vires.
Fair Trading Act 1973 56(2) - Foreign Package Holidays (Tour Operators and Travel Agents) Order 1998 (1998 N0 1945)
Zoan v Rouamba Times, 07 March 2000; [2000] 1 WLR 1500
7 Mar 2000
CA
Consumer, Contract
A document could not be construed other than in its clear words even though one party had clearly intended the result sought. A hire agreement would be unenforceable under the Act, depending upon whether payments were made within a year of the agreement. A payment on the day after could not be included, the agreement was not exempt, and being wrongly executed, was unenforceable, and its cost was not recoverable from another party after an accident.
Consumer Credit Act 1974
1 Citers
Close Asset Finance Ltd v Care Graphics Machinery Ltd; QBD 21-Mar-2000 - Times, 21 March 2000; Gazette, 23 March 2000
Regina v Kettering Magistrates' Court ex parte MRB Insurance Brokers Limited Times, 12 May 2000; Gazette, 18 May 2000; [2000] EWHC Admin 320
4 Apr 2000
Admn
Schiemann LJ, Douglas Brown J
Consumer, Crime, Financial Services
A statement of an APR in the sale of a financial services product remained a price indication, and, if it was miscalculated, that was a misleading price indication, and criminal, despite provisions in the Consumer Credit legislation. What was given was a price under the contract: "The total amount payable under the contract which can properly be described as the price, should be arrived at by reference to the APR. The APR given was very substantially below the true APR and Mr Pulford Junior was given a totally false indication as to how the aggregate of the sums required to be paid would be determined. In those circumstances clearly a misleading indication as to price was given. The question as to the enforceability of the agreement is quite irrelevant." As to the effect of the section: "Section 170(1) is not an obstacle to a prosecution under the Consumer Protection Act 1987, where the provisions of Section 20 are apt to cover a factual situation such as that which arose in this case."
Consumer Protection Act 1987 20 - Consumer Credit Act 1974 170(1)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Dimond v Lovell; HL 12-May-2000 - Gazette, 31 May 2000; Times, 12 May 2000; [2000] UKHL 27; [2000] 2 All ER 897; [2000] 2 WLR 1121; [2002] 1 AC 384; 2000 Rep LR 62; [2000] CCLR 57; [2000] RTR 243
Oceano Grupo Editorial and Salvat Editores (Judgment) C-240/98; [2000] EUECJ C-240/98
27 Jun 2000
ECJ
European, Jurisdiction, Consumer
Europa Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
Europa Approximation of laws - Unfair terms in consumer contracts - Directive 93/13 - Power of the national court to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract is unfair when making its assessment of the contract - Obligation to ensure the effectiveness of the directive when national law is applied. Where a jurisdiction clause is included, without being individually negotiated, in a contract between a consumer and a seller or supplier and where it confers exclusive jurisdiction on a court in the territorial jurisdiction of which the seller or supplier has his principal place of business, it must be regarded as unfair within the meaning of Article 3 of Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts in so far as it causes, contrary to the requirement of good faith, a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer.
The protection provided for consumers by Directive 93/13 on unfair terms in consumer contracts entails the national court being able to determine of its own motion whether a term of a contract before it is unfair when making its preliminary assessment as to whether a claim should be allowed to proceed before the national courts. The national court is obliged, when it applies national law provisions predating or postdating the said Directive, to interpret those provisions, so far as possible, in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive. The requirement for an interpretation in conformity with the Directive requires the national court, in particular, to favour the interpretation that would allow it to decline of its own motion the jurisdiction conferred on it by virtue of an unfair term.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Barry v Davies (T/A Heathcote Ball and Co) and Others Times, 31 August 2000; Gazette, 12 October 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 235
27 Jul 2000
CA
Pill LJ, Sir Murray Suart-Smith
Contract, Consumer, Damages, Agency, Contract
The claimant sought damages from an auctioneer who had failed to accept his bid, and withdrawn the items from the sale. Held: In an auction without reserve the auctioneer was not entitled to withdraw an item on the basis that the highest or only bid was too low. To do so was to put himself in a position as if he was bidding for the seller, and that was not allowed save under the Act. The auctioneer himself was liable in damages to the disappointed bidder in a sum equivalent to the market value less the rejected bid.
Sale of Goods Act 1979 57(4)
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Stent Foundations Ltd v M J Gleeson Group Plc [2000] EWHC Technology 66
9 Aug 2000
TCC
Consumer, Contract, Construction
The defendant company sought to rely upon an exemption clause. Held: Applying standard rules for contract interpretation, the exemption clause was to be construed against the one proposing it. At best the clause was ambiguous, and the defendants claim for exemption failed. The clause did not satisfy the first two tests set down in the Canada Steamship case, and the controversial third test could be ignored.
Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Regina v Docklands Estates Ltd; CACD 22-Sep-2000 - Times, 22 September 2000
Echirolles Distribution v Association du Dauphine and Others [2000] ECR I-8207; C-9/99; [2000] EUECJ C-9/99
3 Oct 2000
ECJ
European, Consumer
National legislation on book prices
[ Bailii ]
Rahman v Sterling Credit Ltd Times, 17 October 2000; Gazette, 17 August 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 222; [2001] 1 WLR 496
17 Oct 2000
CA
Simon Brown and Mummery LJJ
Land, Limitation, Consumer
A lender sought repossession of a property securing a loan from 1998. The borrower sought to assert that the loan was an extortionate credit bargain under the Act. The lender asserted that that claim was out of time. Held: A claim under a statute was an action upon a specialty, and that accordingly the limitation period applicable was twelve years, and the order was to stand.
Consumer Credit Act 1974 - Limitation Act 1980
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Wilson v First County Trust Ltd (1); CA 3-Nov-2000 - Gazette, 18 January 2001; Times, 06 December 2000; [2000] EWCA Civ 278; [2001] QB 407
Wilson v First County Trust [2000] EWCA Civ 427; [2001] QB 407
23 Nov 2000
CA
Consumer
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Eurostock Meat Marketing Ltd v Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland C-477/98; [2000] EUECJ C-477/98
5 Dec 2000
ECJ
Health, Consumer, Agriculture
(Judgment) Agriculture - Animal health - National emergency measures against bovine spongiform encephalopathy - Specified risk material
[ Bailii ]
Ronald and John Popely and Another v D G Scott (Kent County Council) [2000] EWHC Admin 441
21 Dec 2000
Admn
Lord Justice Rose And The Hon Mrs Justice Rafferty
Magistrates, Consumer, Land
This was an appeal by way of case stated. The appellants were alleged to have offered timeshare contracts without notification of cancellation rights. A director claimed he was unfit to attend, but the trial proceeded in his absence. He had, the day before, attended a conference with counsel. Held: Given the medical evidence before them, the magistrates should undoubtedly have allowed an adjournment. The schemes had been constructed so that the purchaser bought shares in a company rather than simply a timeshare. However the magistrates were correct to conclude that this was a timeshare agreement dressed as a share agreement. The magistrates had not effectively considered the opinions of counsel obtained by the respondent and which were capable of establishing a due diligence defence.
Timeshare Act 1992 - Magistrates Courts Act 1980 8 11
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
Michael Ketley v Claire Nicole Gilbert Times, 17 January 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 354; [2001] WLR 986
21 Dec 2000
CA
The Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Brooke And Lord Justice Robert Walker
Consumer
A car hire agreement expressed that payment would become due 'on the expiry of twelve months'. The form of the agreement did not comply with the Consumer Credit Act regulations. To bring the agreement within the exception provided, payment had to be required to be made at some point beginning within the 12 month period. The words here suggested payment only after expiry of the 12 month period, the agreement did not come within the exception, and it was void, and the charges were not recoverable.
1 Citers
[ Bailii ]
Iman Abouzaid v Mothercare (Uk) Ltd Times, 20 February 2001; [2000] EWCA Civ 348
21 Dec 2000
CA
Lord Justice Pill Lord Justice Chadwick And Mr Justice Wright
Consumer, Negligence, Personal Injury, European
The defendant appealed a finding of liability under the Act. The plaintiff had hurt his eye assisting with a pushchair sold by the defendant. An elastic strap had rebounded into his eye. It was argued that the English Act went wider than the Directive in implementing it. Was the strap a defect within the Act? Held: The statute must be interpreted "in the light of the wording and the purpose of the Directive so as to achieve the result which it has in view. The design permitted the risk to arise, and the product was defective: "though the case is close to the borderline, the product was defective within the meaning of the Act. The risk is in losing control of an elastic strap at a time when it is stretched and eyes are in the line of recoil. The product was defective because it was supplied with a design which permitted the risk to arise and without giving a warning that the user should not so position himself that the risk arose. Members of the public were entitled to expect better from the appellants. A factor in that expectation is the vulnerability of the eye and the serious consequences which may follow from a blunt injury to the eye. "
Consumer Protection Act 1987 2(1) - Council Directive 85/374/EEC Art 6
1 Cites
[ Bailii ]
