Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter (Rev 2) [2020] EWHC 672 (QB) (20 March 2020)

Canada Square Operations Ltd v Potter (Rev 2) [2020] EWHC 672 (QB) (20 March 2020)

Section 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to statutory wrongdoing under sections 140A-D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the Appellant's deliberate non-disclosure of commission constituted a breach of duty for limitation purposes, postponing the limitation period.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 672 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Canada Square Operations Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Mrs Beverley Potter
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unfair Relationship, Limitation Period, Deliberate Concealment, PPI Commission Disclosure
Consumer Credit Limitation Unfair Relationship Limitation Period Deliberate Concealment PPI Commission Disclosure

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Canada Square Operations Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Mrs Beverley Potter

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / High Court Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980 postpones limitation for claims under sections 140A-D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 due to deliberate concealment
  2. 2 Whether non-disclosure of PPI commission constitutes a breach of duty for section 32 purposes
  3. 3 Whether the Appellant acted deliberately in concealing commission

Ratio Decidendi

Section 32(2) of the Limitation Act 1980 applies to statutory wrongdoing under sections 140A-D of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the Appellant's deliberate non-disclosure of commission constituted a breach of duty for limitation purposes, postponing the limitation period.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Recorder's judgment affirmed
  • Limitation defence rejected