Jenkins & Anor v Bradford & Bingley Building Society [2002] EWCA Civ 1093 (17 July 2002)

Jenkins & Anor v Bradford & Bingley Building Society [2002] EWCA Civ 1093 (17 July 2002)

The applicants' claims disclosed no valid cause of action in contract or tort. The fines were refunded, extinguishing that head of claim. Damages for distress are not available in this context. No error of law or fact was found in the lower courts' decisions, and no point of practice or principle justified a second appeal.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1093
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Mr R Jenkins; Claimant/applicant: Mrs M J Jenkins; Defendant/respondent: Bradford & Bingley Building Society
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Disputes, Damages for Distress, Restitution, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Contract Law Mortgage Disputes Damages for Distress Restitution Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr R Jenkins

Claimant/applicant

Mrs M J Jenkins

Claimant/applicant

Bradford & Bingley Building Society

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal to the Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants had a valid cause of action in contract or tort against the building society for various heads of claim including distress, correspondence costs, and fines.
  2. 2 Whether the district judge and circuit judge erred in striking out the claim and dismissing the appeal.
  3. 3 Whether there was a point of law or practice justifying a second appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants' claims disclosed no valid cause of action in contract or tort. The fines were refunded, extinguishing that head of claim. Damages for distress are not available in this context. No error of law or fact was found in the lower courts' decisions, and no point of practice or principle justified a second appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal dismissed
  • Transcript of judgment to be provided to the applicants at public expense