Pengelly v Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc [2020] EWHC 2002 (Ch) (28 July 2020)

Pengelly v Business Mortgage Finance 4 Plc [2020] EWHC 2002 (Ch) (28 July 2020)

The broker (UKMFS) was not a fiduciary of the appellant; there was no breach of fiduciary duty; the commission paid was at most a 'half-secret' commission, disclosed in standard terms, and did not justify rescission or compensation; the relationship was not unfair under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2002 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant (defendant Below): Richard Miles Pengelly; Respondent (claimant Below): Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fiduciary Duties, Secret Commissions, Agency Law, Accessory Liability, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Mortgage Law
Equity Commercial Law Consumer Credit Fiduciary Duties Secret Commissions Agency Law Accessory Liability Consumer Credit Act 1974 +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Miles Pengelly

Appellant (defendant Below)

Business Mortgage Finance 4 PLC

Respondent (claimant Below)

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a mortgage broker (UKMFS) owed fiduciary duties to the appellant
  2. 2 Whether payment of commission by lender to broker was a secret or half-secret commission
  3. 3 Whether the appellant was entitled to rescind the mortgage for breach of fiduciary duty or secret commission

Ratio Decidendi

The broker (UKMFS) was not a fiduciary of the appellant; there was no breach of fiduciary duty; the commission paid was at most a 'half-secret' commission, disclosed in standard terms, and did not justify rescission or compensation; the relationship was not unfair under the Consumer Credit Act 1974.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Possession order and costs order against appellant to stand
  • Stay on possession order lifted