Wood v Capital Bridging Finance Ltd

Wood v Capital Bridging Finance Ltd

The loan facility was a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because the creditor knew the loan was not for the defendant's business, disapplying the business purpose presumption. The agreement was non-compliant and could only be enforced by an enforcement order, not by a simple money judgment. The trial judge erred in granting judgment without considering these requirements.

Parties
Appellant/defendant: Bernice Wood; Respondent/claimant: Capital Bridging Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (mortgage Possession/contract) / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment (nottingham County Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; money judgment set aside; liberty to apply for enforcement order granted.
Legal Topics
Consumer Credit Act Compliance, Mortgage Enforcement, Estoppel, Procedural Fairness
Contract Law Consumer Protection Civil Procedure Consumer Credit Act Compliance Mortgage Enforcement Estoppel Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bernice Wood

Appellant/defendant

Capital Bridging Finance Limited

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (mortgage Possession/contract) / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment (nottingham County Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan facility agreement was a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the trial judge erred in granting a money judgment without considering CCA requirements
  3. 3 Whether the defendant was estopped from denying the business purpose declaration

Ratio Decidendi

The loan facility was a regulated agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 because the creditor knew the loan was not for the defendant's business, disapplying the business purpose presumption. The agreement was non-compliant and could only be enforced by an enforcement order, not by a simple money judgment. The trial judge erred in granting judgment without considering these requirements.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; money judgment set aside; liberty to apply for enforcement order granted.

Orders

  • Judge's money judgment set aside.
  • Claimant granted liberty to apply for an enforcement order under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.