Goodman & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2012] EWHC 8 (QB) (25 July 2012)

Goodman & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2012] EWHC 8 (QB) (25 July 2012)

The Claimants were fully and clearly informed that PPI was optional and that the premium would be added to the loan; all relevant information was provided in writing and discussed in sales calls. The Defendant complied with all regulatory requirements, and the Claimants knowingly entered into the agreement. The claims of breach of duty and unsuitability are unsupported by the contemporaneous evidence and are dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 8 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Stuart Goodman; Claimant: Mrs Margaret Goodman; Defendant: Central Capital Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; judgment for Defendant.
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Breach of Statutory Duty, Negligence, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, FSA Handbook ICOB Rules
Financial Services Law Contract Law Insurance Law Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Breach of Statutory Duty Negligence Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 FSA Handbook ICOB Rules

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Stuart Goodman

Claimant

Mrs Margaret Goodman

Claimant

Central Capital Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Central Capital failed to advise the Claimants that PPI was optional and failed to communicate information about the PPI Policy in a clear, fair and not misleading way (Optionality Issue)
  2. 2 Whether Central Capital failed to take reasonable steps to ensure that the PPI was suitable for the Claimants' demands and needs (Suitability Issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants were fully and clearly informed that PPI was optional and that the premium would be added to the loan; all relevant information was provided in writing and discussed in sales calls. The Defendant complied with all regulatory requirements, and the Claimants knowingly entered into the agreement. The claims of breach of duty and unsuitability are unsupported by the contemporaneous evidence and are dismissed.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; judgment for Defendant.

Orders

  • The Claimants' claim is dismissed.
  • The Claimants' application for permission to appeal is refused.