Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB) (01 December 2010)

Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB) (01 December 2010)

The appeal fails because the bank did not breach statutory duties regarding cost or commission, any breach regarding length of cover was not causative, there was no actionable negligence, and the relationship was not unfair under the Consumer Credit Act; all claims are dismissed.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 3152 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Andrew Harrison; Claimant: Elaine Harrison; Defendant: Black Horse Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Statutory Duty, Negligence, Unfair Relationship, Commission Disclosure
Financial Services Law Consumer Credit Law Contract Law Tort Law Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Statutory Duty Negligence Unfair Relationship +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 5 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Harrison

Claimant

Elaine Harrison

Claimant

Black Horse Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the bank breached statutory duties under Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 and ICOB rules 4.3 and 2.3
  2. 2 Whether the bank was negligent in its advice and recommendation of PPI
  3. 3 Whether there was an unfair relationship under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal fails because the bank did not breach statutory duties regarding cost or commission, any breach regarding length of cover was not causative, there was no actionable negligence, and the relationship was not unfair under the Consumer Credit Act; all claims are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed