0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Wilson v First County Trust

6 December 2000
The issues

Credit – Dimond v Lovell – Section 61 – Enforceability – Human Rights Acts.

The facts

Appellant Wilson raised a 6 month loan from First County Trust on the security of her car. The loan consisted of the figure of £5,000.00 and a variable “document fee” set at £250.00. Since she was unwilling to pay the fee, the amount of the fee was added to the amount of the loan.

She did not wish to pay the fee or the loan and sought to argue that because the documents had been improperly executed (Section 61) that therefore agreement could only be enforced by an Order of the Court under Section 65. She contended further following Dimond v Lovell that such enforcement was precluded by Section 127.

The decision

The Court of Appeal was clearly unhappy at a situation whereby the Appellant was allowed both to keep loan and car.

The Court therefore of its own motion, raised the issue of the Human Rights Act and whether the provisions of Section 127 of the Consumer Credit Act were compatible with convention rights. It appeared to the Vice Chancellor that it was arguable that it infringed Article 6 being a disproportionate restriction on the rights of the lender. If the correct conclusion is that it did infringe, there was no way in which the Court could see how it could be read and given effect to a way in which it was compatible with Article 6, (see Section 3 Human Rights Act 1998). Therefore the Court could either ignore the point or make a declaration of incompatibility. The Vice Chancellor took the view that notice should be given to the crown under Section 5 of the Human Rights Act for incompatibility to be further considered. Held appeal adjourned.


It had to happen!

Focus on...

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up