AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Might we be able to change the symbol which appears on the title of this thread

Done - with a link to the new appeal as of today!

[Riz]

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

Any comment on this Paul?

HI

I think care has to be taken over what actually happened and was said here.

"Thirdly, if, as a matter of construction, the Default Notice has not or may not have allowed the minimum statutory period for Mr. Brandon to remedy the breach, then it is (at least) realistically arguable that the defect cannot be overlooked as de minimis. To my mind, this conclusion applies both to the failure to allow a minimum 14 day period and to the absence of prejudice flowing from the defect in the Default Notice. Insofar as DJ Gisby and HHJ Denyer thought otherwise, I am, with respect, unable to agree"

The judge did not say that prejudice was not a factor in deciding if the 14 day period had to be adhered to.

He said that the absense of prejudice caused by the failure could be argued. In other words the court would have to decide if it was, or was not a de minimus breach.

This in fact re enforces the conclusion that prejudice can be a factor.
What it says is that, in this case the prejudice caused is arguable and therefore should not have been the subject of a summary judgement.
What this means is that courts will have to think about each case as regards the prejudice caused in future, it does not mean that creditors cannot use the argument to support enforcement after a DN with insufficient time to remedy is served.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Any comment on this

Rizzle, interesting - where did that come from, out of interest (sounds like a PB statement in a way)!

p.s Paul has just nipped to Asda

[Riz]

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

Rizzle, interesting - where did that come from, out of interest (sounds like a PB statement in a way)!

Well guessed.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Well guessed.

never?

[Riz]

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

I edited out the author as I didn't want to prejudice debate.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

I edited out the author as I didn't want to prejudice debate.

Clever - like your style Rizzle


* It's actually, I can't believe I'm going to say this, not a bad question to raise however I don't agree with it - I'm still trying to get my head round the finer points of judgment so will preserve my opinion as it's slightly complex - Paul was just talking about it (), and he had to say it 6 times before I took it in

[Paul.]

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

Any comment on this Paul?

yes my dick is sixteen foot long

right now back in the real world, im sorry i disagree entirely,prejudice is not relevant, the COA said that and anyone who reads the judgment sees that unless they are blind of course.

The point on appeal was exactly that, 14 days is strict it has no de minimis at all

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

yes my dick is sixteen foot long

Lucky bloke

[Paul.]

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

I am struggling to see a position where, such as the brandon case someone could find prejudice anyhow. If we draw prejudice into the fray then we must be saying that the High Court was right and the Court of Appeal was wrong, which doesnt make sense to me. It is clear that even if the debtor has no intention of remedying the breach in 14 days or 200 days, that is not a factor that comes into the equation, the fact is he must be allowed 14 days from service, if he is not then the notice is bad simples really

[Riz]

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

Thanks Paul.

I still haven't got around to reading and properly digesting the whole thing, so that skewed way of interpreting the COAs words piqued my interest, that's all. And even then, more by way of what parts of the wording DCAs etc may cherry pick despite the loss.

[oscar]

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

yes my dick is sixteen foot long

Seem to remember you making such a claim on another thread previously, although "it" seems to have grown as quickly as that wooden blokes nose did.

[garlok]

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

The last few posts have been really interesting reading. Thanks. I am not surprised at the quote Riz has posted and the source. As I see it, the CoA has reinforced the Statute as it must do. The Statute says 14 days and was therefore Parliament's will. I have always found these "get out jail" cards propounded by DCA/bank sympathisers to have the intent of clouding the issues putting off those who have been wronged.

Ah well undoubtedly there will be dissection appearing on Credit Today telling us that it is all irrelevant anyway. LOL


regards
Garlok

[Silverback]

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

Hello Garlok!

Ah well undoubtedly there will be dissection appearing on Credit Today telling us that it is all irrelevant anyway.

I think the Debt Industry's spin backlash has already started, via their odious double agents now going active over on the dog site.



Silverback

[Paul.]

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

i think we have to look at this in the correct light

Debtor fails to pay debt, thus breaches his contract. It would be absurd to say the creditor can chose to ignore this and contractually terminate or terminate under 98A.

If that were correct we would simply not need s87 ever cos the creditor would never elect to use that provision if he didnt need to, i mean 98A is far easier, there is no form requirement on a 98A notice

If the above is right, why didnt parliament repeal 87-79 when it brought in 98A?