header-logo header-logo

02 October 2014
Issue: 7624 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Consumer contract

Robertson v Swift [2014] UKSC 50, [2014] All ER (D) 45 (Sep)

The proceedings involved a contract made in the claimant’s home that the claimant had purported to cancel. The defendant charged him a cancellation fee and refused to refund him a deposit. In finding for the claimant, the Supreme Court held that a failure by a trader to give written notice of the right to cancel did not deprive a consumer of the statutory right to cancel under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 (SI 2008/1816).

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys—James Paterson

Charles Russell Speechlys further bolsters Private Equity expertise with the appointment of James Paterson

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons—Samuel Flower

Ellisons strengthens Rural Affairs team with senior appointment

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley—Carl Hotton

Sidley adds insurance mergers and acquisitions partner to London office

NEWS
A deputy costs judge correctly exercised his discretion to allow late service rather than strike out the point of dispute, the Court of Appeal has held
Prince Harry, Baroness Doreen Lawrence and five others have lost their case against the publisher of the Daily Mail, Mail on Sunday and MailOnline, in Various Claimants v Associated Newspapers [2026] EWHC 1637 (KB)
Public confidence in the justice system is being undermined by a lack of accessible, useable data, magistrates have warned
The Sentencing Council has launched draft guidelines for facilitation and endangering another person during a sea crossing to the UK
Government proposals to make independent written legal advice a prerequisite for workplace non-disclosure agreements (NDAs) may prove unworkable, according to a senior employment lawyer
back-to-top-scroll