Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

[Nibbler]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

If it's a big PDF can you use dropbox or similar? vBulletin always seem to crap out on me when I try to upload something more than a few MB.

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Or email it to me and I'll put it on server xx admin@legalbeagles.info

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Ok people, the Judgment is attached.

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

most amusing point is where the Judge refers to the Chartered trust case relied upon by MBNA LOL

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Para 32. In those circumstances, I am of the view that both under section 56 and 75 the Defendants are afflicted by the consequences of the fraud for all purposes including the Limitation Act.

.......

Neither the fraud nor the misrepresentation have been made by MBNA which had no knowledge of either. MBNA is nevertheless afflicted with joint and several liability with the supplier and is therefore deemed to be responsible for the misrepresentation and, in my view, also the fraud.

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Para 32. In those circumstances, I am of the view that both under section 56 and 75 the Defendants are afflicted by the consequences of the fraud for all purposes including the Limitation Act.

.......

Neither the fraud nor the misrepresentation have been made by MBNA which had no knowledge of either. MBNA is nevertheless afflicted with joint and several liability with the supplier and is therefore deemed to be responsible for the misrepresentation and, in my view, also the fraud.

Indeed, he didnt need to look at the other limb of the claim, which was whether the scheme was an unauthorised collective investment scheme, which it plainly was per the Asset Land int case.

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

most amusing point is where the Judge refers to the Chartered trust case relied upon by MBNA LOL

The Judge seems a little confused as to why most of those cases were included in the bundles !

Nice and relevant to see Durkin there though


lol @ Para 10 - ''She sued only the present Defendants since the real culprits were not worth powder and shot ''

such a lovely way with words

[Nibbler]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

So is this binding in any sense? Or just citable or persuasive in comparable cases?

Big can of worms no doubt though.....

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

The Judge seems a little confused as to why most of those cases were included in the bundles !

Nice and relevant to see Durkin there though

yeah note the reference to our counsels Immaculately drafted skeleton!!! i spent hours on this case when the file came over, my barrister had all the relevant cases and was well prepared. On the other hand, the oppo seemed to throw in many irrelevant cases, and seemed to focus on the stuff that wasnt relevant

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

So is this binding in any sense? Or just citable or persuasive in comparable cases?

Big can of worms no doubt though.....

Dont worry, were kicking the next one off in the High Court

There are plenty of people who have been wronged, and many want justice for others.

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Soooooooooooooooooooo, the big question, does this now mean other people who succumbed to land banking (or other) scams / frauds and paid deposits by card (if they found out it was a scam under 6 years hence ) now reclaim their full payments from the card providers ?

Was nice to read that M&S paid up before the need for court action.

[pt2537]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Soooooooooooooooooooo, the big question, does this now mean other people who succumbed to land banking (or other) scams / frauds and paid deposits by card (if they found out it was a scam under 6 years hence ) now reclaim their full payments from the card providers ?

Was nice to read that M&S paid up before the need for court action.

well its meant they always could, but til now there hadnt been a judgment on the point.

[Amethyst]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Good stuff Not that I have seen many cases to be fair but I guess if people who have been victim of a fraud or scam, if they knew to claim under section 75 in the first place, get rejected by card providers, they might assume they just have to swallow it and write it off. This at least gives people more confidence to fight back.

[ncf355]

Re: Section 75 & Misrep Court Judgment - Paul Tilley

Just finally read the judgment

Congratulations to you and the team Paul, I'm sure you have contributed massively to a wronged lady being in a much better mental state

And good grief, were the defendants clutching at straws or what!!?

[Tools]

Re: Richard Durkin v HFC / PC World supreme court hearing 28th January 2014

Absolutely well done PT and all involved with the case, an excellent and well deserved Judgement.

Some very interesting points and interpretations raised, much food for thought in other areas.

Para 33 & 34. for example.

33 A secondary point is taken in relation to the LIL transaction that, because LIL had no merchant facility and the merchant facility possessed by Linographic LTD was used to take the payment, the "supplier" for the purposes of the Consumer Credit Act was Linographic LTD not LIL and hence the false representations were not made by the "supplier" and sections 56 and 75 do not apply

34 In my view, this is a false point. Mr Morris was a director of both companies. As such his was the "controlling mind" for each company ( see TESCO v NATTRASS [1972] AC153). He was the author of the fraud. It follows that when he used Linographic LTD to take the payment, Linographic LTD became a party to the fraud so "the supplier" did make the representations relied on.

Mr Carl Wright springs instantly to mind as well as any other CMC up front fees paid by credit card to any related "controlling mind" offshoot companies.

Think I may look into TESCO V NATTRASS in relation to something else too, PT, was << that case purely CCA related too?