Rafferty (Kieran) v GB Finance Group Ltd and GB Asset Management Ltd [2013] NICA 21 (25 April 2013)

Rafferty (Kieran) v GB Finance Group Ltd and GB Asset Management Ltd [2013] NICA 21 (25 April 2013)

The plaintiff/appellant's claim is barred by res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle, as all relevant issues regarding the loan agreement and security could and should have been raised in prior possession proceedings. There is no merit in the claim for unfair relationship or negligence, and no duty of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] NICA 21
Parties
Plaintiff Appellant: Kieran Rafferty; Defendant Respondent: GB Finance Group Limited; Defendant Respondent: GB Asset Management Limited
Jurisdiction
Northern Ireland
Judgment Date
25 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Mortgage Enforcement, Consumer Credit Act 1974, Unfair Relationship, Negligence
Civil Procedure Property Law Consumer Credit Res Judicata Mortgage Enforcement Consumer Credit Act 1974 Unfair Relationship Negligence

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kieran Rafferty

Plaintiff Appellant

GB Finance Group Limited

Defendant Respondent

GB Asset Management Limited

Defendant Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff/appellant's claim is barred by res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle
  2. 2 Whether the loan agreement constituted an unfair relationship under Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974
  3. 3 Whether the defendants owed a duty of care to the plaintiff/appellant in relation to affordability assessment

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff/appellant's claim is barred by res judicata and the Henderson v Henderson principle, as all relevant issues regarding the loan agreement and security could and should have been raised in prior possession proceedings. There is no merit in the claim for unfair relationship or negligence, and no duty of care is owed by the lender in these circumstances.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Order of Deeny J affirmed
  • Plaintiff/appellant to pay defendants' costs on an indemnity basis