AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

He was a LiP until the CoA though wasn't he so costs would be reasonable as it'd not include counsel?....

or no?

[Paul.]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Costs follow the event, that is the general rule and i see no reason why Mr Brandon should not be entitled to his costs, subject to detailed assessment of his bill.

[diddlydee]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Fabulous, thanks for that Nids

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

BTW, does Brandon get his costs for this?.. or at the very least will Amex have to pay for the Brandon legal team?

I asked this question as well, will let you know if the person responds and says it can be made public or not.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Ok, so imagine I'm 12 years old Can someone please explain in the most simple of terms what this actually means.

For example:

Once upon a time a bloke couldn't pay his bill. Amex got snotty, but the default notice was defective. The bloke therefore didn't have to pay the bill and Amex suffered all of the costs. The bloke lived happily ever after.

The End.

See this for a simple explanation Diddles:

The three main points were priceless, the failure to give the statutory time is inarguably NOT de minimis, the date of service is NOT the date of posting and you can't ride two horses with one ass and switch termination clauses mid claim.
A lot of people will be very happy today. The converse applies too.

So Amex lost, Brandon won the appeal right so it is now up to Amex what their next move is, ideally they'd be best writing off the debt and paying Ian Brandon to walk away - however you never know....

It would be nuts for Brandon to appeal, or risk trial with this outcome.

So, basically the CoA decided that Amex were wrong in their assessment that a credit card was similar to a bank account and could be recalled at any time - they need to follow the proper rules for default and termination in line with s.87 & s.88 of CCA1974.

Amex felt that they had a right to summary judgment, this was dismissed - they do not.

Amex tried to say a lot really, and also brought into play at the eleventh hour something else; notably contractual termination - as detailed here:

These observations do not entail that Mr. Brandon's submission based on Ladd v Marshall was soundly based; the rule in Ladd v Marshall is concerned with the introduction of fresh evidence. The change of case here involved an alternative legal argument; Amex did not seek to adduce any fresh evidence in support of it. It is further beyond dispute that an appeal court has a discretion to admit legal argument supporting the decision under appeal on an alternative legal basis not argued in the court below. The question is whether HHJ Denyer QC's decision to permit the introduction of Amex's contractual termination case on appeal, in the circumstances already outlined, was justified.

Quite simply, Amex would be better to walk away - however It's questionable if they will.....

[diddlydee]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Ok, so imagine I'm 12 years old Can someone please explain in the most simple of terms what this actually means.

For example:

Once upon a time a bloke couldn't pay his bill. Amex got snotty, but the default notice was defective. The bloke therefore didn't have to pay the bill and Amex suffered all of the costs. The bloke lived happily ever after.

The End.

[Miss Molly]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Yes, excellent news, despite the snippy comment at the end from the Judge. .

Paul, will Amex count it's losses and quit, or will they make another attempt to hound Brandon?

BTW, does Brandon get his costs for this?.. or at the very least will Amex have to pay for the Brandon legal team?

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Yessssssssssssssssssss!!!
OK...Some quite cutting comments directed at Ian, but all the more sweet a victory, as it gains more credence that the judge wasn't pro debtor, but pro-justice.
Well done Ian and all involved!!!

The three main points were priceless, the failure to give the statutory time is inarguably NOT de minimis, the date of service is NOT the date of posting and you can't ride two horses with one ass and switch termination clauses mid claim.
A lot of people will be very happy today. The converse applies too.

[Susie]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Masive well done for all those involved in that one, and for once a judge who although he did not like the way the verdict went gave it all the same

Sooo, what (if anything) can Amex do now? if I was in their position and had probably paid a small fortune for barristers and the like I would be keeping quiet, cutting my losses and hoping that forum posts died away after the first excitement and that it would not hit too many newspapers to give people not into forums and internet the idea they may have defective DN's.

[Paul.]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Overall a good judgment in my view,

There is no room for prejudice within s87, there is no need for the debtor to suffer prejudice although clearly if the debtor is not given his statement of rights and protections then there will be prejudice to the debtor that the court shall need to weigh up in its judgment.

It confirms the arguments we ran in Harrison were correct surrounding serivce of the notice too

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Just to add whilst at CoA they (Amex) took 2 barristers, a herd of solicitors & a couple of trainees - must have used it as a "training exercise" that went horribly (for them) wrong

Well done Ian and all those that stood by your side, you know who you are.

[Riz]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Sounds very hopeful.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Brilliant. More to come then I presume

[garlok]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

Yes mate I found those last paragraphs a little disturbing to say the least. However it does show that if we stick to the law even a somewhat biased judiciary has to reluctantly agree with us.

regards
Garlok

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

The main annoyance was the way they failed to attack Amex for their appalling conduct, and instead elected to hammer the Consumer for fighting for his rights.

How many times does it say he's a credit risk?

Yes Brandon won.