Newman v Oughton: 1911

The plaintiff sought to execute a judgment against goods in the possession of a judgment debtor. The goods were claimed by a firm of pawnbrokers who said that they were included in a bill of sale granted to them. At the trial of the resulting interpleader the bill of sale was said to have been given as security for an advance of andpound;50. The plaintiff argued that an advance on a bill of sale did not constitute business conducted in accordance with the provisions of the 1872 Act, that the claimant was an unregistered moneylender and that the transaction was therefore void.
Held: The claimant had not acted in breach of the Pawnbrokers Act and was therefore entitled to the protection of section 6(a) of the Moneylenders Act. Also, since there was evidence of only one loan it could not be said that the claimants had been proved to be persons whose business was that of moneylending within the meaning of the Act (Ridley J). Avory J agreed, holding that one isolated transaction was not enough to bring the claimants within the definition of a moneylender.


Ridley J, Avory J


[1911] 1 KB 792


Pawnbrokers Act 1872, Moneylenders Acts 1900 6

Cited by:

CitedKenny v Conroy and Another CA 27-Jan-1999
A court need only first see whether at the time of the loan, the party’s business was that of moneylender. If not, the court then investigates if the person held themselves out as carrying on such a business. Kennedy L.J: ‘. . . a licensed . .
CitedGE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton and Another CA 14-Dec-2005
The bank had entered into a master trading agreement with a trader under which the trader bought motor vehicles as agent for the bank for resale. The vehicles belonged to the bank. The defendant bought all the trader’s vehicles. The defendant now . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.


Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.236662