Axton & Anor v GE Money Mortgages Ltd & Anor

Axton & Anor v GE Money Mortgages Ltd & Anor

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants failed to show a real prospect that the relationship between themselves and the Respondent was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Respondent's involvement in the PPI transactions was minimal, limited to paying out loan funds as requested, and there was no evidence of commission paid or received by the Respondent. The facts did not support a finding of unfairness in the creditor-debtor relationship as required by statute and clarified in Plevin.

Parties
Claimants/appellants: Paul Anthony Axton & Christine Axton; First Defendant/respondent: GE Money Mortgages Limited; Second Defendant: The Money Group (Cornwall) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling, Summary Judgment, Disclosure of Commission, Agency and Broker Relationships
Consumer Credit Contract Law Civil Procedure Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling Summary Judgment Disclosure of Commission Agency and Broker Relationships

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Anthony Axton & Christine Axton

Claimants/appellants

GE Money Mortgages Limited

First Defendant/respondent

The Money Group (Cornwall) Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between the creditor (Respondent) and debtors (Appellants) was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to the sale of PPI policies
  2. 2 Whether the Respondent was responsible for non-disclosure of commission or the terms of PPI policies sold by a third party broker
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the facts and legal arguments

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants failed to show a real prospect that the relationship between themselves and the Respondent was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Respondent's involvement in the PPI transactions was minimal, limited to paying out loan funds as requested, and there was no evidence of commission paid or received by the Respondent. The facts did not support a finding of unfairness in the creditor-debtor relationship as required by statute and clarified in Plevin.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Respondent upheld.

Orders

  • Appellants to pay Respondent's costs of the appeal, summarily assessed at £10,359.60.
  • No stay of enforcement of costs granted; any application for stay to be made to the Court of Appeal.