Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 676 (28 March 2018)

Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 676 (28 March 2018)

The appeal was dismissed because the loan agreement and consent order were not unenforceable under FSMA 2000; the appellants were estopped from denying their contractual representations regarding occupancy, and the compromise of proceedings did not constitute 'administering' a regulated mortgage. There was no basis to set aside the consent order or direct a trial, as the appellants had willingly compromised the issue and there was no error in the lower courts' exercise of discretion.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Civ 676
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Fortwell Finance Limited; Defendant/appellant: Stewart Wayne Halstead; Defendant/appellant: Daniela Halstead
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Regulated Mortgage Contracts, Enforceability of Agreements, Consent Orders, Estoppel, Public Policy, Abuse of Process
Financial Services Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Regulated Mortgage Contracts Enforceability of Agreements Consent Orders Estoppel Public Policy +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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fortwell Finance Limited

Claimant/respondent

Stewart Wayne Halstead

Defendant/appellant

Daniela Halstead

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the loan agreement and consent order were unenforceable under FSMA 2000 due to lack of authorisation and regulation as a mortgage contract
  2. 2 Whether the consent order should be set aside on grounds of public policy, mistake, or statutory unenforceability
  3. 3 Whether entering into the consent order constituted 'administering' a regulated mortgage contract under the 2001 Order

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the loan agreement and consent order were not unenforceable under FSMA 2000; the appellants were estopped from denying their contractual representations regarding occupancy, and the compromise of proceedings did not constitute 'administering' a regulated mortgage. There was no basis to set aside the consent order or direct a trial, as the appellants had willingly compromised the issue and there was no error in the lower courts' exercise of discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order setting aside the consent order