Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead & Anor

Fortwell Finance Ltd v Halstead & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants were bound by their representations in the loan agreement and consent order that the property would not be occupied as a dwelling, and there was no evidence the respondent knew otherwise. The consent order was a valid compromise and did not amount to administering a regulated mortgage. There was no basis to set aside the consent order under FSMA 2000 or on public policy grounds.

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 Judgment Dismissing Application to Set Aside Consent Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Regulated Mortgage Contracts, Enforceability of Agreements, Consent Orders, Statutory Interpretation
Financial Regulation Contract Law Civil Procedure Regulated Mortgage Contracts Enforceability of Agreements Consent Orders Statutory Interpretation

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 11 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 Judgment Dismissing Application to Set Aside Consent Order

Legal Issues

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

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the appellants were bound by their representations in the loan agreement and consent order that the property would not be occupied as a dwelling, and there was no evidence the respondent knew otherwise. The consent order was a valid compromise and did not amount to administering a regulated mortgage. There was no basis to set aside the consent order under FSMA 2000 or on public policy grounds.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No setting aside of consent order
  • No order for trial of the issue