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 Respondent's involvement in the provision of PPI was limited to paying premiums out of loan proceeds at the Appellants' request, with no requirement to purchase PPI, no commission received or paid, and no responsibility for the terms or sale of PPI. The relationship between creditor and debtor was not unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and summary judgment was appropriate given the uncontroverted facts and absence of a real prospect of success.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1343 (QB)
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
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 Procedure, Disclosure of Commission, Broker/lender Relationship
Consumer Credit Contract Insurance Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 Mis Selling of Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Summary Judgment Procedure Disclosure of Commission Broker/lender Relationship

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the relationship between creditor and debtor was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was appropriate given the reverse burden of proof under section 140B(9)
  3. 3 Whether the Respondent was responsible for disclosure of commission and suitability of PPI policies

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Respondent's involvement in the provision of PPI was limited to paying premiums out of loan proceeds at the Appellants' request, with no requirement to purchase PPI, no commission received or paid, and no responsibility for the terms or sale of PPI. The relationship between creditor and debtor was not unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and summary judgment was appropriate given the uncontroverted facts and absence of a real prospect of success.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; summary judgment for Respondent upheld.

Orders

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