Goodman & Anor v Central Capital Ltd

Goodman & Anor v Central Capital Ltd

The court found that the Claimants were properly and repeatedly informed that PPI was optional, the premium would be added to the loan, and the suitability of the product was adequately assessed and communicated. The contemporaneous evidence and documentation contradicted the Claimants’ assertions, and their witness evidence was found unreliable. There was no breach of duty or statutory obligation by Central Capital.

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 / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi), Negligence, Breach of Statutory Duty, Misrepresentation, Suitability of Financial Products
Insurance Law Financial Services Regulation Contract Law Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Negligence Breach of Statutory Duty Misrepresentation Suitability of Financial Products

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 / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Central Capital failed to advise the Claimants that PPI was optional and failed to communicate information in a clear, fair and not misleading way (ICOB 2.2)
  2. 2 Whether Central Capital failed to take reasonable steps to ensure the PPI was suitable for the Claimants’ demands and needs (ICOB 4.3)
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants were properly informed about the addition of the PPI premium to the loan and the interest charged on it

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Claimants were properly and repeatedly informed that PPI was optional, the premium would be added to the loan, and the suitability of the product was adequately assessed and communicated. The contemporaneous evidence and documentation contradicted the Claimants’ assertions, and their witness evidence was found unreliable. There was no breach of duty or statutory obligation by Central Capital.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed

Orders

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