WATCHTOWER INVESTMENTS v PAYNE (2001)

VALERIE JOYCE McGINN v GRANGEWOOD SECURITIES (2002)

LONDON NORTH SECURITIES v MEADOWS (2005)

HURSTANGER LTD v WILSON v BURTON COMMISSIONS (2007)

HURSTANGER LTD v WILSON v BURTON (2007)

WILSON and OTHERS v SECRETARY of STATE for TRADE and INDUSTRY (Appellant)

Quote:
72. Undoubtedly, as illustrated by the facts of the present case, section 127 (3) may be drastic, even harsh, in its adverse consequences for a lender. He loses all his rights under the agreement, including his rights to any security which has been lodged. Conversely, the borrower acquires what can only be described as a windfall.

He keeps the money and recovers his security. These consequences apply just as much where the lender was acting in good faith throughout and the error was due to a mistaken reading of the complex statutory requirements as in the case of deliberate non-compliance. These consequences also apply where, as in the present case, the borrower suffered no prejudice as a result of the non-compliance as they do where the borrower was misled. - Lord Nicholls

LONDON NORTH SECURITIES Ltd -v- 1) TONY JAMES MEADOWS (2) MICHELLE DEBRA MEADOWS

Eventually on 4th February 2004 the original possession order was set aside and permission was given to the Defendants to defend the claim on terms. The case came on for trial in the Southport County Court, but sitting in Liverpool, in October 2004 before His Honour Judge Howarth. By then the Claimant claimed that over £140,000 was due even calculating the sums at a concessionary interest rate of 27%, but with monthly compounding, and including some £43,000 for legal costs, with £37,000 interest on them. After a four day trial the judge held that the credit agreement was unenforceable because of a number of failures to comply with requirements imposed under the 1974 Act.