Boyo v Lloyds Bank Plc

Boyo v Lloyds Bank Plc

The defendant's report to credit reference agencies was true, made in accordance with contractual terms and ICO guidance, and did not require a Default Notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant was in default, the business relationship had broken down, and the defendant acted with reasonable care and skill. The defamation claim fails on truth and qualified privilege, the contract claim fails as the defendant acted appropriately, and the common law duty claim fails as no breach was established.

Parties
Claimant: Aniekan Mary Boyo; Defendant: Lloyds Bank Plc
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 August 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Defamation by Credit Reporting, Breach of Contract, Duty of Care in Credit Reporting, Limitation Period, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence
Defamation Contract Law Banking Law Common Law Duty Defamation by Credit Reporting Breach of Contract Duty of Care in Credit Reporting Limitation Period +2 more

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aniekan Mary Boyo

Claimant

Lloyds Bank Plc

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial of Preliminary Issues

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant has a defamation or malicious falsehood claim against the defendant
  2. 2 Whether the defendant breached its contract with the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the defendant breached any common law duty owed to the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's report to credit reference agencies was true, made in accordance with contractual terms and ICO guidance, and did not require a Default Notice under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. The claimant was in default, the business relationship had broken down, and the defendant acted with reasonable care and skill. The defamation claim fails on truth and qualified privilege, the contract claim fails as the defendant acted appropriately, and the common law duty claim fails as no breach was established.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed