Kumar & Ors v LSC Finance Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 254 (15 March 2024)

Kumar & Ors v LSC Finance Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 254 (15 March 2024)

The Pattingham Loan Agreements were investment property loans, not regulated mortgage contracts, as both statutory criteria were satisfied; Clause 4.3 of the Guarantees prevents double recovery of interest but does not relieve the guarantor from liability to pay interest; fresh evidence regarding witness credibility in unrelated proceedings would not have influenced the outcome and does not justify setting aside the judgment.

Citation
[2024] EWCA Civ 254
Parties
Appellant/claimant/3rd Party: Rajinder Kumar; Appellant/claimant/4th Party: Manjit Kumari; Appellant/claimant/4th Party: Lalit Ram Verma; Respondent/defendant: LSC Finance Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Regulated Mortgage Contracts, Investment Property Loans, Guarantee Interpretation, Admissibility of Fresh Evidence, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act
Financial Regulation Contract Law Property Law Regulated Mortgage Contracts Investment Property Loans Guarantee Interpretation Admissibility of Fresh Evidence Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rajinder Kumar

Appellant/claimant/3rd Party

Manjit Kumari

Appellant/claimant/4th Party

Lalit Ram Verma

Appellant/claimant/4th Party

LSC Finance Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Pattingham Loan Agreements were regulated mortgage contracts or investment property loans under FSMA 2000 and Regulated Activities Order 2001
  2. 2 Interpretation of Clause 4.3 of Deeds of Guarantee and Indemnity regarding interest liability
  3. 3 Admissibility of fresh evidence and amendment of grounds of appeal based on alleged witness credibility issues

Ratio Decidendi

The Pattingham Loan Agreements were investment property loans, not regulated mortgage contracts, as both statutory criteria were satisfied; Clause 4.3 of the Guarantees prevents double recovery of interest but does not relieve the guarantor from liability to pay interest; fresh evidence regarding witness credibility in unrelated proceedings would not have influenced the outcome and does not justify setting aside the judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to adduce fresh evidence refused
  • Application to amend grounds of appeal refused