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

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

Contingent loss in negligence claims

Contingent loss is relevant to limitation; specifically, the date at which a claimant’s cause of action accrues for the purposes of a claim in the tort of negligence (as many claims against professional advisers are framed).


Legal updates

Legal and regulatory monthly update - September 2019

The latest update covering delegated authority, insurance product development, the senior insurance managers regime, data protection, operational control frameworks, Lloyds market, and horizon scanning.


Legal updates

Kuoni referred to the CJEU by Supreme Court for clarification - possible impact on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility claims for sexual abuse and assault

We were hoping to be able to give you some interesting insights following the judgment of X v Kuoni Travel Ltd but that will have to wait for another day.


Legal updates

The disappearance of LIBOR

Companies should undertake a comprehensive review and audit to identify those products and legacy contracts that are LIBOR-linked and carry out an in-depth risk assessment of discontinuation. Where possible, companies should look at appointing an individual to oversee the programme.


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