Consolidated Finance Ltd v MccLuskey & Anor
It is not possible in the circumstances of this case to imply a term into the loan agreement that would satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the purpose clause is meaningless, and the agreement is not capable of being interpreted as a restricted-use credit agreement. The loan agreement is therefore a regulated agreement and not exempt.
- Parties
- Appellant/claimant: Consolidated Finance Limited; Respondent/defendant: McCluskey; Respondent/defendant: McCluskey's brother
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 01 August 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
- Outcome
- appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Implied Terms, Regulated Agreements, Exempt Agreements, Loan Agreements, Statutory Interpretation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Consolidated Finance Limited
Appellant/claimant
McCluskey
Respondent/defendant
McCluskey's brother
Respondent/defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the loan agreement is an exempt agreement under the Consumer Credit Act 1974
- 2 Whether a term can be implied into the loan agreement to satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the Act
Ratio Decidendi
It is not possible in the circumstances of this case to imply a term into the loan agreement that would satisfy section 11(1)(b) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974; the purpose clause is meaningless, and the agreement is not capable of being interpreted as a restricted-use credit agreement. The loan agreement is therefore a regulated agreement and not exempt.
Court Disposition
appeal dismissed
Orders
- no order on the Respondent's Notice
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment