Axton & Anor v GE Money Mortgages Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 1343 (QB) (22 May 2015)

Axton & Anor v GE Money Mortgages Ltd & Anor [2015] EWHC 1343 (QB) (22 May 2015)

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants could not establish that any unfairness in the PPI arrangements arose in the relationship between themselves and the Respondent, as required by s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Respondent did not sell, require, or receive commission for the PPI, and its involvement was limited to paying out sums as requested. The Judge was entitled to grant summary judgment as there was no real prospect of success on the facts and law.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1343
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
Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (cpr 24.2) Granted to Respondent in County Court
Outcome
Appeal dismissed. Summary judgment for Respondent upheld.
Legal Topics
Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974, Mis Selling of Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Summary Judgment, Burden of Proof, Agency, Disclosure of Commission, Costs Assessment
Consumer Credit Contract Law Civil Procedure Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 Mis Selling of Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Summary Judgment Burden of Proof Agency +2 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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
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

Appeal / Appeal Against Summary Judgment (cpr 24.2) Granted to Respondent in County Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair under s.140A-C Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to PPI mis-selling
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the burden of proof and factual disputes
  3. 3 Whether Respondent was responsible for non-disclosure of commission or unfair terms in PPI policies

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Appellants could not establish that any unfairness in the PPI arrangements arose in the relationship between themselves and the Respondent, as required by s.140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Respondent did not sell, require, or receive commission for the PPI, and its involvement was limited to paying out sums as requested. The Judge was entitled to grant summary judgment as there was no real prospect of success on the facts and law.

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.