Tweet
Buckingham & Buckingham v Black Horse Limited
No royal wedding in PPI litigation: Buckingham & Buckingham v Black Horse Limited - Lexology
This is an important decision for brokers and lenders alike. Many brokers and lenders face claims for secret commissions and it is a key component of such a claim that a fiduciary relationship exists. It has always been the case that such a duty is very difficult to establish, and there have been a number of cases where such a claim has failed. This is further support for the proposition that where no broker fee is paid, a fiduciary relationship is highly unlikely to exist. It is also a further reminder that even if a broker fee is paid, as it was in Yates, it does not necessarily follow that there will be a fiduciary relationship. We have argued in a number of cases that the Guide satisfies the requirements for disclosure and in this case the Court accepted this argument. It is not the case (and never has been) that a broker or lender must disclose the amount of the secret commission.
The Court's decision on the claim for misrepresentation is also extremely welcome. There was no direct evidence from the sales person but, once again, the borrower's evidence failed to satisfy the Court. Indeed, it was described by the judge as 'flimsy'. It is also a useful reminder for practitioners, as we noted in our review on Woodward & Woodward v Black Horse Limited, to cross-check allegations against those made in the letter of claim.
No royal wedding in PPI litigation: Buckingham & Buckingham v Black Horse Limited - Lexology
This is an important decision for brokers and lenders alike. Many brokers and lenders face claims for secret commissions and it is a key component of such a claim that a fiduciary relationship exists. It has always been the case that such a duty is very difficult to establish, and there have been a number of cases where such a claim has failed. This is further support for the proposition that where no broker fee is paid, a fiduciary relationship is highly unlikely to exist. It is also a further reminder that even if a broker fee is paid, as it was in Yates, it does not necessarily follow that there will be a fiduciary relationship. We have argued in a number of cases that the Guide satisfies the requirements for disclosure and in this case the Court accepted this argument. It is not the case (and never has been) that a broker or lender must disclose the amount of the secret commission.
The Court's decision on the claim for misrepresentation is also extremely welcome. There was no direct evidence from the sales person but, once again, the borrower's evidence failed to satisfy the Court. Indeed, it was described by the judge as 'flimsy'. It is also a useful reminder for practitioners, as we noted in our review on Woodward & Woodward v Black Horse Limited, to cross-check allegations against those made in the letter of claim.
