Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297 (09 October 2014)

Graves v Capital Home Loans Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1297 (09 October 2014)

The relationship between Mr Graves and CHL was not unfair under ss.140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as CHL's actions were commercially justified given the history of arrears and substantial compliance with industry guidelines. No evidence established disability discrimination under the Equality Act.

Citation
[2014] EWCA Civ 1297
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Raymond James Graves; Defendant/respondent: Capital Home Loans Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Mortgage Enforcement, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Mental Incapacity, Equality Act Discrimination
Property Law Consumer Credit Law Disability Law Mortgage Enforcement Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Mental Incapacity Equality Act Discrimination

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raymond James Graves

Claimant/appellant

Capital Home Loans Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether ss.140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 apply to the mortgage
  2. 2 Whether the relationship between Mr Graves and CHL was unfair due to the inclusion of clause 9.1.6 or the exercise of CHL's rights
  3. 3 Whether CHL breached industry guidelines or discriminated under the Equality Act

Ratio Decidendi

The relationship between Mr Graves and CHL was not unfair under ss.140A and 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as CHL's actions were commercially justified given the history of arrears and substantial compliance with industry guidelines. No evidence established disability discrimination under the Equality Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed