GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton & Anor

GE Capital Bank Ltd v Rushton & Anor

Mr. Rushton was not a private purchaser but a trade purchaser under section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 because he bought the vehicles as a business venture with a view to resale and profit. Therefore, he did not obtain good title to the vehicles. Mr. Jenking obtained good title to the VW Golf under section 27(3) as a bona fide private purchaser without notice. Both defendants were liable for conversion of the vehicles except for the VW Golf, for which Mr. Jenking had good title. The Recorder erred in her interpretation of 'private purchaser' and in using auction prices without adjustment for depreciation.

Parties
Claimant: G. E. Capital Bank Limited; Defendant: Stephen Rushton; Defendant: Richard Jenking
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 December 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; judgment for the Bank against Mr. Rushton for conversion of all seven cars; judgment for the Bank against Mr. Jenking for conversion of six cars (excluding the VW Golf); Mr. Jenking entitled to proceeds of VW Golf.
Legal Topics
Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet, Conversion, Hire Purchase, Good Faith Purchaser, Mercantile Agent, Factors Act, Sale of Goods, Title to Goods
Commercial Law Banking and Finance Law Consumer Protection Nemo Dat Quod Non Habet Conversion Hire Purchase Good Faith Purchaser Mercantile Agent +3 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 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

G. E. Capital Bank Limited

Claimant

Stephen Rushton

Defendant

Richard Jenking

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Rushton was a private purchaser or a trade purchaser under section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Rushton and Mr. Jenking obtained good title to the vehicles
  3. 3 Whether the Recorder erred in using auction prices as evidence of value

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Rushton was not a private purchaser but a trade purchaser under section 27 of the Hire Purchase Act 1964 because he bought the vehicles as a business venture with a view to resale and profit. Therefore, he did not obtain good title to the vehicles. Mr. Jenking obtained good title to the VW Golf under section 27(3) as a bona fide private purchaser without notice. Both defendants were liable for conversion of the vehicles except for the VW Golf, for which Mr. Jenking had good title. The Recorder erred in her interpretation of 'private purchaser' and in using auction prices without adjustment for depreciation.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; judgment for the Bank against Mr. Rushton for conversion of all seven cars; judgment for the Bank against Mr. Jenking for conversion of six cars (excluding the VW Golf); Mr. Jenking entitled to proceeds of VW Golf.

Orders

  • Mr. Rushton to pay the Bank £64,550 for conversion of seven vehicles.
  • Mr. Jenking to pay the Bank £55,700 for conversion of six vehicles (excluding the VW Golf).