PC World 16 year court case in today's DM

fermi · 20 March 2014 at 2:49PM

http://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/case_2012_0135.html

Judgement to be handed down next Wednesday.

Judgment hand down date:

26 March 2014

fermi · 20 March 2014 at 5:17PM

Won't know until judgement is actually handed down next week.

fermi · 20 March 2014 at 5:19PM

http://supremecourt.uk/news/future-judgments.html

Wednesday 26 March 2014

09:45

Courtroom 1

Kennedy (Appellant) v The Charity Commission (Respondent)
Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Toulson

Durkin (Appellant) v DSG Retail Ltd and another (Respondents)
Lady Hale, Lord Wilson, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Proposed bench for hand-down: Lord Neuberger, Lord Mance, Lord Wilson, Lord Toulson, Lord Hodge

The hand-down will be streamed on Supreme Court Live and will then be made available on the Supreme Court's YouTube channel.

PaulW922 · 20 March 2014 at 10:17PM

Back in 1998 did you have a cooling off period of run-store credit agreements? I know you do now..

The default would of course have dropped off the customers file in 2004 so there must be something else causing him to be unable to get a mortgage

fermi · 26 March 2014 at 9:15AM

Judgement due this morning.

aldredd · 26 March 2014 at 11:33AM

Judgement given - still reading through but appears to find in Mr Durkin's favour

Summary
http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0135_PressSummary.pdf

Full Judgement
http://supremecourt.uk/decided-cases/docs/UKSC_2012_0135_Judgment.pdf

ETA:
Ok, looks like they've found he was right to rescind the contract, and that damages for lack of duty of care of £8000 + interest are valid. But that the further losses for being unable to buy a property are not valid as it can't be proved this was a direct result of the original issue. (I think!)

The First Division (in paras 80 - 82) concluded that
there was no evidence to support the sheriff’s crucial finding that Mr Durkin’s
additional borrowing from the Northern Rock was caused by the non-availability of
0% credit rather than by the general level of his expenditure. Again they altered
the relevant finding of fact. As a result, on the findings of fact there is no causal
link between the adverse credit reference and Mr Durkin’s inability to fund the
purchase of the Spanish property.

I would allow the appeal and declare that Mr Durkin was entitled to
rescind and validly rescinded the credit agreement by giving notice to HFC in about
February 1999. Damages resulting from HFC’s breach of its duty of care are
confined to injury to Mr Durkin’s credit in the sum of £8,000. I would give the
parties an opportunity to agree the date from which interest should run and the rate
or rates of interest to be applied.

rizla_king · 26 March 2014 at 4:11PM

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2014/mar/26/supreme-court-victory-hsbc-pc-world

However, legal experts said the unanimous judgment in Durkin's favour could unleash a tidal wave of similar claims from people who argue that their lives were ruined after black marks were put on their credit files.

Andrew Smith QC, who represented the married father of two in court, indicated the ruling would make it much harder for banks and other financial firms to report people to credit reference agencies, leading to them being blacklisted for credit. He said the judgment meant that where a consumer disputes that he or she defaulted on a loan or credit agreement, the bank or firm cannot put a default notice on their credit file until the matter has been resolved.

"It's victory, but they didn't have jurisdiction to help me in the end, which is disappointing," Durkin told the Guardian immediately after the judgment. "But I'm pleased for the consumer. A lot of people will benefit from this – it's massive."

Meanwhile, Smith said he had already received instructions from about 20 people who wished to follow Durkin's example in taking legal action on the grounds that they had suffered as a result of defaults being wrongly put on their files.

He said: "There may be many people who have in the past been wrongly listed as being in default who potentially have rights to litigate now."

The case raised significant issues as to whether credit reference agencies such as Experian and Equifax "are exposed to the risk of litigation if they incorrectly report or list someone as being in default".