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 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

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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.

View

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