Bank Notes

October 2014

30/10/14

GRACE v BLACK HORSE LIMITED [2014] EWCA Civ 1413

Whether a credit agreement is temporarily or irredeemably unenforceable by virtue of non-compliance with the Consumer Credit Act 1974, the underlying agreement is not void but remains in place together with its rights and obligations (McGuffick v RBS, 2009 applied). Nevertheless, in the case of an irredeemably unenforceable agreement it is not accurate to describe the debtor as a defaulter in the records of a credit reference agency, without at least recording the unenforceability of the agreement in the same entry. To do so was a breach of statutory duty under the Data Protection Act 1998. Whether the same applies when the agreement is only temporarily unenforceable was left open for decision in a suitable case.

28/10/14

EDWARDS v BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT LTD [2014] EWHC 3540 (Ch)

The court was not satisfied on a balance of probabilities that goods owned by a third party which had been used in serviced offices were in the possession of the company which owned the offices. Either the owner of the assets had retained possession, or it had transferred possession to the sub-tenants. On that basis the power conferred on the court by para 72 of Sch B1 to the Insolvency Act 1986 to authorise the company’s administrators to dispose of the goods did not arise because that power required the goods to be in the possession of the company. If the power had arisen the court would not have been satisfied that the balance of convenience lay in ordered an immediate sale.

14/10/14

DOWLING v BENNETT GRIFFIN [2014] EWCA Civ 1545

Solicitors had not been negligent in failing to make an application requiring the defendant to litigation to disclose his insurance cover.

10/10/14

WEATHERFORD GLOBAL PRODUCTS LTD v HYDROPATH HOLDINGS LTD [2014] EWHC 3243 (TCC)

The court reviewed the applicable principles for making a company director liable for non-party costs of proceedings to which the company was a party [4]. On the facts, the director/shareholder controlled the litigation for the company, he stood to benefit from speculative counterclaims and it was just and fair that he should personally pay the costs of the counterclaims.

3/10/14

CREDIT SUISSE INTERNATIONAL v STICHTING VESTIA GROEP [2014] EWHC 3103 (Comm)

Although the defendant lacked capacity to enter into certain swap transactions, warranties given in the ISDA Master Agreement which it signed created a contractual estoppel preventing it from disputing its liability, alternatively the claimant was entitled to damages for breach of the warranties.