header-logo header-logo

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

Law digests: 3 April 2020

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

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll