• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2011)

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2011)

    Hello Folks!

    This is now on BAILII:

    Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2011)

    Cheers,
    BRW
    Tags: None

  • #2
    Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

    This is really good news isn't it? Unless I've got it wrong...

    Appeal allowed because LJ Gross disagrees that defects in a S87 DN are not "de minimis" and that a lender cannot (easily) switch to a S98 claim if his S87 claim fails due to those defects and he fails to serve a S98 notice prior to termination?

    Seems like very good news at last...I know still an appeal, but this must give some clout to ongoing default and/or termination disputes where the lender cocks up paperwork...or doesn't bother with it at all.

    LA

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

      Originally posted by Lord_Alcohol View Post
      This is really good news isn't it? Unless I've got it wrong...

      Appeal allowed because LJ Gross disagrees that defects in a S87 DN are not "de minimis" and that a lender cannot (easily) switch to a S98 claim if his S87 claim fails due to those defects and he fails to serve a S98 notice prior to termination?

      Seems like very good news at last...I know still an appeal, but this must give some clout to ongoing default and/or termination disputes where the lender cocks up paperwork...or doesn't bother with it at all.

      LA
      Careful I have been and lost even after the result, as Brandon was claimant not defendant.???

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

        Originally posted by MIKE770 View Post
        Careful I have been and lost even after the result, as Brandon was claimant not defendant.???
        True but the lower courts will no longer be able to ride roughshod over statute & if they do they risk being successfully appealed on a technical point

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

          Originally posted by righty View Post
          True but the lower courts will no longer be able to ride roughshod over statute & if they do they risk being successfully appealed on a technical point
          My case was last Thursday, and lost on cpr rules aso any cpr quoted ensure the right rule is used (for the right circumstances) I used the wrong one it seems.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

            Originally posted by MIKE770 View Post
            My case was last Thursday, and lost on cpr rules aso any cpr quoted ensure the right rule is used (for the right circumstances) I used the wrong one it seems.

            Did you quote Francovitch in which the EU stated that any national court has a duty to consider the WHOLE contract even if NOT argued

            If not you may have grounds to appeal

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

              Originally posted by righty View Post
              Did you quote Francovitch in which the EU stated that any national court has a duty to consider the WHOLE contract even if NOT argued

              If not you may have grounds to appeal
              No as I was told the 10 minute hearing had run over, but as the F.O.S. are investigating complaint etc, also at this stage now HSBC are looking for paperwork (CCA etc) regarding my account via SAR which they have sent which admits that they are having trouble in a business source locating same, The I.C.O. is also involved, so await next move>? , and as I said it was suggested to that as I used the wrong cpr rule not one relating to admission, the case was not set aside, which could mean if necessary later to go for that for set aside as last resort, even their solicitor asked if I would now pursue that line, told if not at the moment, as he asked the D.J. what the F.O.S. was!

              The CCA was in/around 1997
              Last edited by MIKE770; 14th November 2011, 20:33:PM.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

                Originally posted by MIKE770 View Post
                No as I was told the 10 minute hearing had run over, but as the F.O.S. are investigating complaint etc, also at this stage now HSBC are looking for paperwork (CCA etc) regarding my account via SAR which they have sent which admits that they are having trouble in a business source locating same, The I.C.O. is also involved, so await next move>? , and as I said it was suggested to that as I used the wrong cpr rule not one relating to admission, the case was not set aside, which could mean if necessary later to go for that for set aside as last resort, even their solicitor asked if I would now pursue that line, told if not at the moment, as he asked the D.J. what the F.O.S. was!

                The CCA was in/around 1997

                Using the wrong rules or not as an LIP the judge has a duty to allow you to amend or rather include the alternative argument particularly if he knows you might be successful

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Brandon v American Express Services Europe Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1187 (25 October 2

                  Originally posted by righty View Post
                  Using the wrong rules or not as an LIP the judge has a duty to allow you to amend or rather include the alternative argument particularly if he knows you might be successful
                  Yes I would of thought so, even after their solicitor asked are you going to try for set aside on the grounds mentioned, I did not reply a direct answer.

                  Comment

                  View our Terms and Conditions

                  LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                  If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                  If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                  Working...
                  X