Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

[Never-In-Doubt]

Well in around 20-30 mins the eagerly awaited Durkin (vs HFC/PC World) Supreme Court Judgment should be handed down (09.45am)..

--> http://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/case_2012_0135.html

The key points are:

1. Whether there was a valid loan agreement between the Appellant and the Second Respondent
2. If there was a valid loan agreement, whether the right to rescind was a "like claim" under s. 75(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Let's see........

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

http://supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Soooo he won £8k due to damage to credit status. No £200+ thousand as expected....

[PlanB]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Who has to pay the lawyers' massive legal costs?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Press Summary -> http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases...essSummary.pdf

judgment -> http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases...5_Judgment.pdf

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Who has to pay the lawyers' massive legal costs?

That will be decided at appeal won't it? This judgment allows right of appeal. He basically won, the Supreme Court agree that damage was caused to his credit worthiness.

Well done

[Undercover Elsa]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Looks very fair and well thought out. I'd have been surprised if they'd allowed the rest of the claim unless there was cast iron proof of loss.

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

This was key (from judgment press release)...

HFC did not contest the award of £8,000 for damage to credit if breach of duty were established. However, the Supreme Court rejects Mr Durkin’s attempt to restore the sheriff’s award of damages for the extra interest he paid and for the loss of the capital gain on the Spanish property. Appeals like the present may only be made on matters of law, meaning the Supreme Court cannot go behind the First Division’s findings of fact on these alleged loss.....

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Now one key point is the following (top paragraph)



That suggests that a solicitor MUST (under delictual duty) ensure the account is enforceable PRIOR to issuing a claim.

[ken100464]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Would this point have any impact on any cases where the bank loses after a court case. (not been there thankfully so not sure if this gets taken into consideration)

By that I mean they sue and lose on enforceability but then continue to report to the CRA's. Would the above help to squash all trace of the account now?

And indeed if you get any letter from a bank saying its unenforceable wouldnt that now leave them open to a claim if reporting to the CRA's? Seems to sort of go against Carey?

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Bugger me. The forum involved in this case, with the claimant being a user there doesn't understand legal jargon on an ermmm legal forum

--> http://www.legalbeagles.info/forums/...585#post420585

Good god. Next they'll be saying they're worth £30m

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Would this point have any impact on any cases where the bank loses after a court case. (not been there thankfully so not sure if this gets taken into consideration)

By that I mean they sue and lose on enforceability but then continue to report to the CRA's. Would the above help to squash all trace of the account now?

And indeed if you get any letter from a bank saying its unenforceable wouldnt that now leave them open to a claim if reporting to the CRA's? Seems to sort of go against Carey?

Well no because only a judge can deem an agreement unenforceable so using the Durkin judgment it'd only affect claims that weren't chasing UE as the underlying provision allows correct and accurate data recording. If you don't pay you still owe it, but choose not to.

In Durkin he rescinded his contract and had no goods. So the default was wrong from outset. He was thus entitled to damages. See the difference?

[ken100464]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Indeed makes much more sense now. Thanks

[Never-In-Doubt]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

BBC --> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotlan...tland-26731192

[Riz]

Re: Durkin Supreme Court Judgment - 26 March 2014

Judgement now in web page form on: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/21.html