Robertson v Swift

Robertson v Swift

The removal agreement was unenforceable against the appellant because the respondent failed to provide written notice of the right to cancel as required by the 2008 Regulations, which apply to contracts made in a consumer's home regardless of the number of visits.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Toby Robertson; Respondent: Terence John Swift
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed in relation to the claim; appeal dismissed in relation to the counterclaim.
Legal Topics
Cancellation of Contracts, Unenforceability, Regulatory Compliance, Ultra Vires
Consumer Protection Contract Law Cancellation of Contracts Unenforceability Regulatory Compliance Ultra Vires

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Toby Robertson

Appellant

Terence John Swift

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does paragraph 5(a) of the 2008 Regulations apply to contracts made during multiple visits?
  2. 2 Are the 2008 Regulations ultra vires for exceeding the scope of the European Directive?
  3. 3 What are the financial consequences of unenforceability under the Regulations?

Ratio Decidendi

The removal agreement was unenforceable against the appellant because the respondent failed to provide written notice of the right to cancel as required by the 2008 Regulations, which apply to contracts made in a consumer's home regardless of the number of visits.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in relation to the claim; appeal dismissed in relation to the counterclaim.

Orders

  • Judgment in favour of the claimant for £2,450.60 plus costs set aside.
  • Counterclaim for recovery of £1,000 deposit dismissed.