AMEX LIMITED v IAN KARL ROBERT BRANDON [2010]

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Excellent.

Is this it, or can we expect round 4?

It's not over by a long shot but I had to laugh that Amex tried to say that a card was the same as a bank account, ie repayable on demand!!

Fucking clowns!

[garlok]

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

Is everybody still reading and digesting? Thanks Paul for getting it out to us. Is this not a result which should put this DN argument to bed?

I have not read it all but picked out few salient points and then went to the last line allowing the Appeal.

Phew!!! yes?

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Surprising.......

[Riz]

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

Excellent.

Is this it, or can we expect round 4?

[Paul.]

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

correct

nor can they say its contractual termination where there is a breach

[Riz]

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

So

(1) not entitled to the SJ.

(2) DN not giving the 14 days from service was not something that should have been passed over as not being significant in the original decision?

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.

Do I read that correctly?

[Paul.]

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

Since its a public judgment


Here it is

[Riz]

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

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1187.html

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

11.30 is when the public judgment was handed down - ie for public discussion.

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

Oomph well what a fucking day eh?

* you'll all know real soon sit tight

[Riz]

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

I presume "Not before half past eleven" can basically mean any time today?

[Riz]

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

tap tap tap

[oscar]

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

, so dont ask me til after 11 30 tomorrow,

Which time zone??

[Never-In-Doubt]

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

and i still know naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathin, so dont ask me til after 11 30 tomorrow, then ill tell you that i know saaaaaaaaaaaaarmthin

I think it's good news, but still feel that it may be brushed under the carpet in that it'll be sealed so he won't be able to discuss it, I mean if they offered him say £100k to walk away, he'd be mad not to - right?

Its too costly for Amex to have this in public......

[helmsman]

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

and i still know naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaathin, so dont ask me til after 11 30 tomorrow, then ill tell you that i know saaaaaaaaaaaaarmthin

GIVE US A CLUE