header-logo header-logo

Unfair windfalls

28 February 2008 / Paul Beevers
Issue: 7310 / Categories: Features , Public , Constitutional law , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Paul Beevers welcomes the demise of the rule of 78

The rule of 78, which increases the amount borrowers have to pay on early redemption by adding the loan interest to the end of the term and then giving only a partial rebate of the future interest charges, is something that both borrowers and conveyancers need to watch out for. The attraction of the rule to lenders is clear, particularly as the windfall for the lender increases with the term of the loan and the rate of interest. However, in Evans v Cherrytree Finance Ltd (unreported, 13 April 2007), the High Court decided that a contract term which permitted a lender to use the rule to calculate a settlement figure fell foul of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083), and was therefore void.

Evans had borrowed £105,000 from Cherrytree, but when he wanted to redeem his mortgage 18 months later, a rule of 78 calculation gave the lender a windfall of £34,000 over and above the capital balance outstanding.

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll