RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015)

RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell [2015] EWHC 630 (QB) (12 March 2015)

The agency agreement was illegal and unenforceable because RTA was not registered as required under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 at the time of contracting. The statutory prohibition in Regulation 33 rendered the contract void. The defendant was not a consumer for the purposes of the 2008 or 1999...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 630
Parties
Claimant: RTA (Business Consultants) Limited; Defendant: Peter Bracewell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed insofar as it relied on breach of the agreement
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Estate Agency Regulation, Money Laundering Regulations, Consumer Protection, Unfair Contract Terms
Contract Law Regulatory Compliance Illegality of Contract Estate Agency Regulation Money Laundering Regulations Consumer Protection Unfair Contract 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 3 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RTA (Business Consultants) Limited

Claimant

Peter Bracewell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's failure to register under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 rendered the agency agreement illegal and unenforceable
  2. 2 Whether the defendant was a 'consumer' for the purposes of the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 and the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was entitled to commission or registration fees under the agreement

Ratio Decidendi

The agency agreement was illegal and unenforceable because RTA was not registered as required under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 at the time of contracting. The statutory prohibition in Regulation 33 rendered the contract void. The defendant was not a consumer for the purposes of the 2008 or 1999 Regulations, as the agreement was entered into in the course of his trade.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed; counterclaim dismissed insofar as it relied on breach of the agreement