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 against Black Horse in relation to the sale of PPI are unarguable and inadequately particularised and are disallowed. The unfair relationship claim under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is not barred for Mrs Barnes by the exclusionary...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 1416 (QB)
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

Source-derived case record

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 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 claim to include breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, breach of contract, and unenforceability under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  2. 2 Whether the unfair relationship claim under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is arguable and can proceed
  3. 3 Whether the exclusionary rule under transitional provisions bars Mrs Barnes from bringing a s140A claim

Ratio Decidendi

Claims for breach of fiduciary duty, negligence, and breach of contract against Black Horse in relation to the sale of PPI are unarguable and inadequately particularised and are disallowed. The unfair relationship claim under s140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 is not barred for Mrs Barnes by the exclusionary rule, as she was not a party to the earlier enforcement proceedings at the relevant time, and is arguable on the facts pleaded. The unenforceability claim regarding the First Agreement is arguable and may proceed, subject to further particulars being provided.

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 are refused.
  • Amendment to pursue unenforceability of the First Agreement is allowed, subject to further particulars.