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

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello Folks!

This is now on BAILII:

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

Cheers,
BRW

[Lord_Alcohol]

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

[MIKE770]

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

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

[righty]

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

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

[MIKE770]

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

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.

[righty]

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

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

[MIKE770]

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

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

[righty]

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

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

[MIKE770]

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

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.