The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

The Office of Fair Trading v Foxtons Ltd [2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch) (10 July 2009)

The renewal commission provisions in both the old and new Foxtons terms are not part of the core bargain as perceived by the typical consumer and are therefore not exempt from fairness scrutiny under Regulation 6(2). The old terms, particularly clause 2.14.3, are not drafted in plain and intelligible language due to...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 1681 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: The Office of Fair Trading; Defendant: Foxtons Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Application Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 / Judgment After Hearing on the Fairness of Contract Terms
Outcome
Declaratory relief granted; terms found unfair under the UTCCR. Precise form of relief to be determined.
Legal Topics
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts, Interpretation of Core Terms, Plain and Intelligible Language, Remedies for Unfair Terms
Consumer Law Contract Law Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Interpretation of Core Terms Plain and Intelligible Language Remedies for Unfair Terms

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Office of Fair Trading

Claimant

Foxtons Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 / Judgment After Hearing on the Fairness of Contract Terms

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Are the renewal commission provisions in Foxtons' old and new terms unfair under the UTCCR?
  2. 2 Are the provisions exempt from fairness scrutiny as core terms under Regulation 6(2)?
  3. 3 Are the terms drafted in plain and intelligible language?

Ratio Decidendi

The renewal commission provisions in both the old and new Foxtons terms are not part of the core bargain as perceived by the typical consumer and are therefore not exempt from fairness scrutiny under Regulation 6(2). The old terms, particularly clause 2.14.3, are not drafted in plain and intelligible language due to vague references to 'associated or connected persons.' The renewal commission provisions are unfair under the UTCCR as they create a significant imbalance to the detriment of the consumer. The third party renewal commission and sales commission provisions are also unfair. The precise form of relief is to be determined after this ruling.

Court Disposition

Declaratory relief granted; terms found unfair under the UTCCR. Precise form of relief to be determined.

Orders

  • Declaration that the renewal commission, third party renewal commission, and sales commission provisions in Foxtons' old and new standard terms are unfair and not binding on consumers.
  • Further directions for the parties to agree the form of relief.