header-logo header-logo

Law digests: 3 April 2020

01 April 2020
Issue: 7881 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Consumer protection

Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter [2020] EWHC 672 (QB), [2020] All ER (D) 158 (Mar)

The proceedings raised a point of some general importance, concerning the interaction of s 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), which deprived a defendant of a limitation defence if he had deliberately concealed a breach of duty, with s 140A-D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA 1974). The respondent alleged that she had been mis-sold payment protection insurance, in respect of which the appellant company (then trading by a different name), from which she had taken a loan, had received a commission. The respondent brought a claim to recover the balance of the premia she had paid, together with contractual and statutory interest, relying on CCA 1974, s 140A-D. The appellant relied on the defence of limitation, however, the recorder found in the respondent’s favour. The Queen’s Bench Division, in dismissing the appellant’s appeal, construed LA 1980 s 32(2) and held that the appellant’s non-disclosure of the commission had been unfair

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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll