(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 the original could work injustice. A photocopy was not necessary and a reconstruction would do. HHJ Langan QC said: ‘Suppose a situation in which a lender could not find an original agreement which had been misplaced in its archives, or in which a batch of such agreements was destroyed in a fire. Suppose also that the lender could reconstitute the agreement or agreements from other sources – a card index or computerised records of transactions, and a copy of the standard terms printed on application forms at the relevant date. In such a case, even though no doubt could be cast on the accuracy of the work of reconstruction, the lender would be subject to the section 78(6) bar on enforcement and, in the case of destruction by fire, the bar would necessarily be perpetual. This would, in my judgment, be a grave injustice to the lender, while to permit reconstruction would not work any countervailing injustice to the borrower. I do not accept that a fair apportionment of risk between the parties requires the court to adopt the interpretation for which Mr Berkley contends.’
Judges:
HHJ Langan QC
Citations:
Unreported, 13 September 2009
Statutes:
Consumer Credit Act 1974 61 78 189
Cited by:
Cited – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Consumer, Banking
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.384475
