NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anor

NRAM Plc v McAdam & Anor

The references in the loan agreements to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 did not incorporate the Act's provisions into unregulated agreements, nor did they create contractual terms or estoppels entitling borrowers to statutory protections. The statements amounted only to representations or warranties, actionable if false, but did not confer statutory rights or obligations. The appeal was allowed, and the borrowers were not entitled to redress under section 77A of the Act.

Parties
Appellant: NRAM PLC; Respondent: Jeffrey Patrick McAdam; Respondent: Ann Hartley
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Consumer Credit Act 1974, Misrepresentation, Contractual Incorporation, Estoppel, Loan Agreements, Statutory Interpretation
Contract Law Consumer Protection Banking and Finance Consumer Credit Act 1974 Misrepresentation Contractual Incorporation Estoppel Loan Agreements +1 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NRAM PLC

Appellant

Jeffrey Patrick McAdam

Respondent

Ann Hartley

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (commercial Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether statements in loan agreements referencing the Consumer Credit Act 1974 incorporated the Act's provisions into unregulated agreements exceeding £25,000.
  2. 2 Whether such statements gave rise to contractual terms, warranties, or estoppel preventing the lender from denying statutory protections.
  3. 3 Whether borrowers under such agreements were entitled to redress for non-compliance with section 77A of the Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The references in the loan agreements to the Consumer Credit Act 1974 did not incorporate the Act's provisions into unregulated agreements, nor did they create contractual terms or estoppels entitling borrowers to statutory protections. The statements amounted only to representations or warranties, actionable if false, but did not confer statutory rights or obligations. The appeal was allowed, and the borrowers were not entitled to redress under section 77A of the Act.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Precise terms of declarations and consequential orders to be agreed by counsel or determined by the court upon written submissions.