Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors v Wardle & Ors

Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors v Wardle & Ors

Mr Wardle failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that, but for the FRL continuing beyond January 2013, his business would have survived or that he would have sold the Unit. The evidence showed the business was not viable and the opportunities to sell the Unit were declined for reasons unrelated to the FRL or the Bank. The reduction in debt already ordered adequately compensated Mr Wardle for the unfairness found.

Parties
Claimant: CLYDESDALE BANK PLC (trading as Yorkshire Bank); Claimant: Paul Michael Diakiw; Claimant: David Robert Heap; Defendant: Gary Wardle; Defendant: RR & MW Limited; Defendant: John Robinson (trading as Robinson Truck Bodyworks)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Hearing on Consequential Loss and Repayment Terms
Outcome
Claim for further consequential loss dismissed; no further adjustment to debt ordered.
Legal Topics
Unfair Credit Relationships, Consequential Loss, Loan Restructuring, Remedies Under Consumer Credit Act 1974
Banking Law Consumer Credit Unfair Credit Relationships Consequential Loss Loan Restructuring Remedies Under Consumer Credit Act 1974

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

Parties

CLYDESDALE BANK PLC (trading as Yorkshire Bank)

Claimant

Paul Michael Diakiw

Claimant

David Robert Heap

Claimant

Gary Wardle

Defendant

RR & MW Limited

Defendant

John Robinson (trading as Robinson Truck Bodyworks)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Hearing on Consequential Loss and Repayment Terms

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Wardle suffered further consequential loss due to the fixed-rate loan (FRL) continuing beyond January 2013
  2. 2 Whether the sum payable by Mr Wardle to the Bank should be further adjusted under section 140B of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether Mr Wardle was prevented from selling the Unit by the FRL

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Wardle failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that, but for the FRL continuing beyond January 2013, his business would have survived or that he would have sold the Unit. The evidence showed the business was not viable and the opportunities to sell the Unit were declined for reasons unrelated to the FRL or the Bank. The reduction in debt already ordered adequately compensated Mr Wardle for the unfairness found.

Court Disposition

Claim for further consequential loss dismissed; no further adjustment to debt ordered.

Orders

  • No further adjustment to the sum payable by Mr Wardle to the Bank.
  • Repayment schedule to be set as per the Bank's proposal, with arrears deferred to the end of the loan term and monthly payments to commence after the order.