0370 270 6000

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

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


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.


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