Consolidated Finance Ltd v MccLuskey & Anor [2012] EWCA Civ 1325 (01 August 2012)
The Court held that no term could be implied into the loan agreement to satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The purpose clause in the agreement was meaningless, and the requirements for implying a term were not met. Therefore, the agreement was not exempt and was a regulated agreement under the Act.
- Citation
- [2012] EWCA Civ 1325
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Consolidated Finance Limited; Respondent/defendant: McCluskey and Anr
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 01 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court (chelmsford) to Court of Appeal
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Implied Terms, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Exempt Agreements, Loan Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Consolidated Finance Limited
Appellant/claimant
McCluskey and Anr
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court (chelmsford) to Court of Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the loan agreement is an exempt agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
- 2 Whether a term can be implied into the loan agreement to satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the 1974 Act
Ratio Decidendi
The Court held that no term could be implied into the loan agreement to satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The purpose clause in the agreement was meaningless, and the requirements for implying a term were not met. Therefore, the agreement was not exempt and was a regulated agreement under the Act.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- No order on the Respondent's Notice
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment