All your resources at your fingertips.Learn More
C provided annulment funding to the debtor and, to secure the repayment, obtained a charge over the matrimonial home of the debtor and her husband. Upon their inability to refinance the borrowing, C sought possession of the property. The debtor and her husband argued that the charge was unenforceable as not having been obtained in compliance with the Consumer Credit Act legislation. HHJ Hazell Marshall QC allowed C's claim, but the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal. Construing the legislation and having regard to the terms of the complex agreements, the arrangements were a regulated agreement and they, and the legal charge, were unenforceable as the Consumer Credit Act 1974 had not been complied with. Whether an enforcement order would be made in subsequent proceedings would have to be considered then. The Court of Appeal also made observations as to the unfairness of the transactions and as to the part played by the solicitors concerned.
"BPIR is an excellent series, of interest to both corporate and personal insolvency lawyers,...