0370 270 6000

Wilson v First County Trust Ltd No.2, Court of Appeal, 2 May 2001

8 May 2001
The issues

Debt owed to First County

The facts

You may recall that Mrs Wilson tried to get out of a debt owed to First County. In doing so the bank relied at the last minute on provisions of the Human Rights Act and in respect of the draconian effects of Section 127. When this matter arose in the Court of Appeal the case was adjourned to allow the Secretary of State to make representation with regard to whether or not a declaration of incompatibility should be made.

The decision

It was argued by the Treasury’s solicitor that the Court had no power to make a declaration of incompatibility since the making of the regulated agreement took place before the 1988 Act came into force. However, the Court took the view that the relevant date was not the date of the agreement but the date on which the matter came before the Court for the Court to make an Order since it had after Section 6(1) to refrain from acting in a way incompatible with a convention right (this if I remember correctly was exactly the point taken by Peter Groble in his lecture last year).

The effects of Section 127 and Section 65 of the Consumer Credit Act was to deprive the Defendant of his ability to enjoy benefits from its contractual rights arising from the agreement. It favoured a “mechanistic approach” i.e. did the document contain all the prescribed terms. The policy aim – protection of the consumer – was legitimate. The means by which the aims achieved was not legitimate. The prohibition was inflexible. There was no reason why such a prohibition should be inflexible to achieve the policy aim. “It could be achieved through judicial control, by empowering the Court to do what was just in a particular case”. It was not possible to read or give effect to the relevant provisions to the 1974 Act in a way that was compatible with convention rights and in the circumstances it was appropriate to make a declaration of incompatibility.

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