Whatcott, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 1889 (29 October 2019)

Whatcott, R. v [2019] EWCA Crim 1889 (29 October 2019)

The enforceability of the contractual provision as a penalty was a matter of law for the judge to determine. The judge correctly found the late payment charges to be disproportionate, extravagant, and unconscionable, and thus unenforceable as penalties. The judge's approach to the standard of proof, even if erroneous, was to the appellant's benefit and did not affect the safety of the conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2019] EWCA Crim 1889
Parties
Prosecution: Regina; Appellant: Christopher Whatcott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Fraud, Unfair Commercial Practices, Penalty Clauses, Burden of Proof, Contractual Enforceability
Criminal Law Contract Law Consumer Protection Fraud Unfair Commercial Practices Penalty Clauses Burden of Proof Contractual Enforceability

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Regina

Prosecution

Christopher Whatcott

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Renewed Application for Leave to Appeal Against Conviction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial judge erred in ruling that the issue of penalty charges was a matter of law for the judge rather than the jury
  2. 2 Whether the judge applied the correct standard of proof regarding the untruth of representations
  3. 3 Whether the contractual terms constituted unenforceable penalty charges or unfair contractual terms

Ratio Decidendi

The enforceability of the contractual provision as a penalty was a matter of law for the judge to determine. The judge correctly found the late payment charges to be disproportionate, extravagant, and unconscionable, and thus unenforceable as penalties. The judge's approach to the standard of proof, even if erroneous, was to the appellant's benefit and did not affect the safety of the conviction. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • representation order granted to Mr S Parham