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 agreement was illegal and unenforceable because RTA, as an estate agent, was required to be registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and was not so registered at the time of the agreement. The statutory scheme intended to prohibit unregistered persons from carrying on estate agency business, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 630 (QB)
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
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Estate Agency Regulation, Money Laundering Regulations, Consumer Status, Unfair Contract Terms
Contract Law Regulatory Compliance Consumer Protection Illegality of Contract Estate Agency Regulation Money Laundering Regulations Consumer Status 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 23 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 as an estate agent 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 agreement was unenforceable for failure to provide cancellation notice under the 2008 Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was illegal and unenforceable because RTA, as an estate agent, was required to be registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 and was not so registered at the time of the agreement. The statutory scheme intended to prohibit unregistered persons from carrying on estate agency business, and thus contracts made in breach are unenforceable. 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 or profession.

Court Disposition

claim dismissed

Orders

  • Claim dismissed as unenforceable for illegality under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007
  • Counterclaim dismissed insofar as it relied on breach of the agreement