CBI Property Projects Ltd v Tripipatkul & Tripipatkul [2024] EWHC 3080 (Ch) (15 October 2024)
The default interest rate was commercially justified due to increased risk after default; the creditor discharged the burden of proof regarding fairness; fresh evidence of secret commission could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and is not admitted.
- Citation
- [2024] EWHC 3080 (Ch)
- Parties
- Claimant: CBI Property Projects Limited; Defendants/appellants: Tripipatkul & Tripipatkul
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 15 October 2024
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
- Outcome
- Permission to appeal refused
- Legal Topics
- Unfair Relationship, Default Interest Rate, Penalty Clauses, Secret Commission, Fresh Evidence on Appeal
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
CBI Property Projects Limited
Claimant
Tripipatkul & Tripipatkul
Defendants/appellants
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Permission to Appeal (oral Hearing)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
- 2 Whether the 12% default interest rate constituted a penalty and was unenforceable
- 3 Whether the creditor discharged the burden of proof regarding fairness
Ratio Decidendi
The default interest rate was commercially justified due to increased risk after default; the creditor discharged the burden of proof regarding fairness; fresh evidence of secret commission could have been obtained with reasonable diligence and is not admitted.
Court Disposition
Permission to appeal refused
Orders
- Application to amend Grounds of Appeal to rely on fresh evidence refused
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment