Car Crash Line Ltd & Anor v Branton Edwards (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 634 (18 April 2002)

Car Crash Line Ltd & Anor v Branton Edwards (A Firm) [2002] EWCA Civ 634 (18 April 2002)

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to refuse a preliminary issue and express a view on the legal point, but his comments were not binding on future proceedings; the law remains as stated in Dimond v Lovell until Parliament amends section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the declaration of incompatibility in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd does not alter this.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 634
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Car Crash Line Limited; Claimant/respondent: Car Crash Line UK Limited; Defendant/appellant: Branton Edwards (a firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 April 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Conference Order
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Unjust Enrichment, Restitutionary Remedies, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Human Rights Act 1998, Case Management, Preliminary Issues
Contract Law Consumer Credit Civil Procedure Unjust Enrichment Restitutionary Remedies Consumer Credit Act 1974 Human Rights Act 1998 Case Management +1 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Car Crash Line Limited

Claimant/respondent

Car Crash Line UK Limited

Claimant/respondent

Branton Edwards (a firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Case Management Conference Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants have a restitutionary remedy against customers under unenforceable consumer credit agreements
  2. 2 Whether a preliminary issue should be ordered on the availability of a restitutionary remedy
  3. 3 Effect of Human Rights Act 1998 and declaration of incompatibility on section 127(3) Consumer Credit Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the judge was entitled to refuse a preliminary issue and express a view on the legal point, but his comments were not binding on future proceedings; the law remains as stated in Dimond v Lovell until Parliament amends section 127(3) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, and the declaration of incompatibility in Wilson v First County Trust Ltd does not alter this.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs of appeal to be costs in the issue whether there is a restitutionary claim available