Barnes & Anor v Black Horse Ltd [2011] EWHC 1416 (QB) (31 May 2011)

Barnes & Anor v Black Horse Ltd [2011] EWHC 1416 (QB) (31 May 2011)

Claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract based on the GISC Code or OFT Guidelines are unarguable in the context of a lender offering a single PPI product without advice or recommendation; such codes and guidelines do not create enforceable duties. The claim for unenforceability of the First Agreement is arguable and may proceed, subject to further particulars. Mrs Barnes, but not Mr Barnes, is entitled to bring an unfair relationship claim under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as she was not a party to enforcement proceedings during the transitional period; the court may consider the earlier agreements as context for the unfairness of the Third...

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1416
Parties
Claimant: Shelley Barnes; Claimant: Darren Barnes; Defendant: Black Horse Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Consumer Credit / Interlocutory Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out
Outcome
Application to re-amend Particulars of Claim allowed in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 S140 a, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Negligence, Breach of Contract, Unenforceability of Credit Agreements
Consumer Credit Contract Law Financial Services Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act 1974 S140 a Breach of Fiduciary Duty Negligence Breach of Contract +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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shelley Barnes

Claimant

Darren Barnes

Claimant

Black Horse Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Consumer Credit / Interlocutory Application to Re Amend Particulars of Claim and Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants can amend their Particulars of Claim to include claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, unenforceability, and unfair relationship under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 s140A.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant owed fiduciary duties or a duty of care to the claimants in the sale of PPI policies.
  3. 3 Whether the GISC Code or OFT Guidelines create contractual or tortious duties.

Ratio Decidendi

Claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract based on the GISC Code or OFT Guidelines are unarguable in the context of a lender offering a single PPI product without advice or recommendation; such codes and guidelines do not create enforceable duties. The claim for unenforceability of the First Agreement is arguable and may proceed, subject to further particulars. Mrs Barnes, but not Mr Barnes, is entitled to bring an unfair relationship claim under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, as she was not a party to enforcement proceedings during the transitional period; the court may consider the earlier agreements as context for the unfairness of the Third...

Court Disposition

Application to re-amend Particulars of Claim allowed in part and refused in part.

Orders

  • Amendments to include claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract refused.
  • Amendment to plead unenforceability of the First Agreement allowed, subject to further particulars.