RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell

RTA (Business Consultants) Ltd v Bracewell

The agreement was unenforceable due to illegality as RTA was not registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 at the time of contracting, and the Regulations prohibit unregistered estate agents from carrying on business. The contract was therefore void and neither party could enforce its terms. The consumer protection regulations did not apply as Mr. Bracewell was not acting as a consumer. The misrepresentation and breach of skill and care claims failed on the facts.

Parties
Claimant: RTA (Business Consultants) Limited; Defendant: Peter Bracewell
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
claim and counterclaim dismissed
Legal Topics
Illegality of Contract, Estate Agency Regulation, Consumer Protection, Misrepresentation, Unfair Contract Terms
Contract Law Regulatory Compliance Illegality of Contract Estate Agency Regulation Consumer Protection Misrepresentation Unfair Contract Terms

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 28 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RTA (Business Consultants) Limited

Claimant

Peter Bracewell

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the agreement between RTA and Mr. Bracewell was unenforceable due to illegality under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007
  2. 2 Whether the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer’s Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 applied
  3. 3 Whether there was actionable misrepresentation or breach of implied term of skill and care

Ratio Decidendi

The agreement was unenforceable due to illegality as RTA was not registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 at the time of contracting, and the Regulations prohibit unregistered estate agents from carrying on business. The contract was therefore void and neither party could enforce its terms. The consumer protection regulations did not apply as Mr. Bracewell was not acting as a consumer. The misrepresentation and breach of skill and care claims failed on the facts.

Court Disposition

claim and counterclaim dismissed