BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Queen's Bench Division) Decisions >> Binns v Firstplus Financial Group Plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB) (24 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/2436.html Cite as: [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB), [2014] Bus LR 110, [2014] BUS LR 110, [2013] WLR(D) 361 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Buy ICLR report: [2014] Bus LR 110] [View ICLR summary: [2013] WLR(D) 361] [Help]
Lowgate Kingston upon Hull HU1 2EZ |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
Christopher and Claire BINNS |
Respondent (Claimant) |
|
- and - |
||
FIRSTPLUS FINANCIAL GROUP PLC |
Appellant (Defendant) |
____________________
Mr David Willink (instructed by Wixted and Co) for the Respondent
Hearing dates: 13th June 2013
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
His Honour Judge Jeremy Richardson QC:
Introduction
(1) The claimant was mis-sold PPI relating to a credit agreement.
(2) The claimant (via solicitors) made a claim under an ADR scheme against a defendant reserving the right to make a county court claim.
(3) The ADR scheme made an award giving full monetary compensation for the losses incurred, but no legal costs.
(4) The claimant commenced a county court claim for damages arising from the mis-selling of PPI asserting additional damages will be awarded in court.
(5) The defendant applied to strike out the claim and/or summary judgment.
(6) Should the court summarily end the county court claim?
The Facts
"The relationship between (the claimant and the defendant) was an unfair one within the meaning of section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. (The defendant) took advantage of (its) position as a credit provider in order to sell (the claimant) an over priced and unsuitable product upon which (it) could charge interest.
As a result (the claimant has) suffered financial loss and intend(s) to claim damages from you. (The claimant) intend(s) to claim the cost of the PPI policy, interest and/or alternatively any such order under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 as the court thinks just, so as to right the unfairness caused by the sale of the insurance."
"We require this matter to be investigated in accordance with the standard guidelines set by the (FSA). We, therefore, expect a final liability decision from you or your insurers within 8 weeks of this letter."
"Having reviewed your complaint, we are not satisfied that the Payment Protection Insurance (PPI) was suitable for your needs or that it was adequately explained to you when you took out the policy. As a result we have upheld your complaint.
We wish to put your loan account back into the position it would have been in had you not taken out the PPI policy.
Thereafter, the letter gives much detail of how the defendant intended to recompense the claimant for the losses incurred. It is unnecessary to set out the detail, but the global compensation would have amounted to £8797.06. The procedure for accepting the offer was explained and a draft acceptance form was included.
The Claim
(1) Negligent Misrepresentation and/or misstatement;
(2) Negligence relating to misrepresentation by partial non-disclosure.
(3) Breach of the Insurance Conduct of Business (ICOB) rules.
(4) Unfair (second) loan under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (1974 Act).
The Strike-out and Summary Judgment application
"This offer ----- (is) the most the claimants' could ever expect to receive if they were ever successful in litigation."
CPR Part 3.4 (2) (a) and (b)
"(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –
(a) that the statement discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;
(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings."
The Andrew Case
(1) By 2010 there were many PPI claims in various county courts. Order needed to be injected into the litigation as a whole.
(2) At that time the FSA were drafting a scheme to deal with PPI claims and compensation.
(3) There was a judicial review of the FSA scheme which was unsuccessful.
(4) The FSA scheme was instituted in 2011.
(5) Many thousands of claims are being processed by the FSA scheme – an ADR scheme.
The Principles in this case
This Case
Conclusion