Paragon Finance plc v Nash | |
---|---|
Full case name | Paragon Finance plc v Nash and Staunton |
Citation(s) | [2001] EWCA Civ 1466, [2002] 1 WLR 685, [2002] 2 All ER 248 |
Keywords | |
Unfair terms |
Paragon Finance plc v Nash [2001] EWCA Civ 1466 is an English contract law case concerning unfair contract terms.
Paragon (t/a National Home Loans Corporation plc until 1997) was claiming possession from Mr and Mrs Nash in South Norwood for late mortgage repayments. Paragon’s rate of interest was variable at its discretion. The Bank of England lowered its interest rate. Paragon did not ‘pass on’ the lower rate. Nash claimed that they were being made to pay substantially over the market rate of interest for secured loans, and were unable to find another lender because they had fallen into arrears. Mr & Mrs Nash argued that the interest rates were extortionate under the Consumer Credit Act 1974 section 138 (grossly exorbitant, grossly contravenes principles of fair trading; regard had to prevailing interest rates and risk).
Dyson LJ held that the power to vary the interest rate at its discretion had to be exercised in a rational and honest way. This implied term was ‘necessary in order to give effect to the reasonable expectations of the parties.’ [36] and [42] However, in this case the bank was acting reasonably in protecting its interests. It was not grossly exorbitant. Nor was the term unfair under UCTA 1977 section 3(2)(b)(i), because part of the ‘contractual performance’ was the discretion and its exercise was what could be reasonably expected.
Thorpe LJ and Astill J concurred.
John McFall of the Treasury Select Committee said that banks are ‘defying the laws of financial arithmetic’ by not passing on the cuts in interest rates to consumers. [1] For instance, Barclays is still charging 14.9% on credit card repayments, while the Bank’s rate is 3%.
In finance, a loan is the lending of money by one or more individuals, organizations, or other entities to other individuals, organizations, etc. The recipient incurs a debt and is usually liable to pay interest on that debt until it is repaid, as well as to repay the principal amount borrowed.
Fixed income refers to any type of investment under which the borrower or issuer is obliged to make payments of a fixed amount on a fixed schedule. For example, the borrower may have to pay interest at a fixed rate once a year and repay the principal amount on maturity. Fixed-income securities — more commonly known as bonds — can be contrasted with equity securities – often referred to as stocks and shares – that create no obligation to pay dividends or any other form of income. Bonds carry a level of legal protections for investors that equity securities do not — in the event of a bankruptcy, bond holders would be repaid after liquidation of assets, whereas shareholders with stock often receive nothing.
Second mortgages, commonly referred to as junior liens, are loans secured by a property in addition to the primary mortgage. Depending on the time at which the second mortgage is originated, the loan can be structured as either a standalone second mortgage or piggyback second mortgage. Whilst a standalone second mortgage is opened subsequent to the primary loan, those with a piggyback loan structure are originated simultaneously with the primary mortgage. With regard to the method in which funds are withdrawn, second mortgages can be arranged as home equity loans or home equity lines of credit. Home equity loans are granted for the full amount at the time of loan origination in contrast to home equity lines of credit which permit the homeowner access to a predetermined amount which is repaid during the repayment period.
A shared appreciation mortgage or SAM is a mortgage in which the lender agrees to receive some or all of the repayment in the form of a share of the increase in value of the property.
Unconscionability is a doctrine in contract law that describes terms that are so extremely unjust, or overwhelmingly one-sided in favor of the party who has the superior bargaining power, that they are contrary to good conscience. Typically, an unconscionable contract is held to be unenforceable because no reasonable or informed person would otherwise agree to it. The perpetrator of the conduct is not allowed to benefit, because the consideration offered is lacking, or is so obviously inadequate, that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.
This article gives descriptions of mortgage terminology in the United Kingdom.
Payment protection insurance (PPI), also known as credit insurance, credit protection insurance, or loan repayment insurance, is an insurance product that enables consumers to ensure repayment of credit if the borrower dies, becomes ill or disabled, loses a job, or faces other circumstances that may prevent them from earning income to service the debt. It is not to be confused with income protection insurance, which is not specific to a debt but covers any income. PPI was widely sold by banks and other credit providers as an add-on to the loan or overdraft product.
A line of credit is a credit facility extended by a bank or other financial institution to a government, business or individual customer that enables the customer to draw on the facility when the customer needs funds. An amount of credit that a financial institution makes available to a business or consumer during a specified period of time.
English contract law is the body of law that regulates legally binding agreements in England and Wales. With its roots in the lex mercatoria and the activism of the judiciary during the industrial revolution, it shares a heritage with countries across the Commonwealth, from membership in the European Union, continuing membership in Unidroit, and to a lesser extent the United States. Any agreement that is enforceable in court is a contract. A contract is a voluntary obligation, contrasting to the duty to not violate others rights in tort or unjust enrichment. English law places a high value on ensuring people have truly consented to the deals that bind them in court, so long as they comply with statutory and human rights.
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc [2001] UKHL 52 is the leading case on the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. It was an action to test the fairness of clauses in loan agreements which secured a bank's commercial interest rates after a debtor that had defaulted and they had been to court to determine their repayment scheme. The House of Lords held that the clause did not fall within the ambit of reg 6(2) and that it was valid in accordance with the fairness test. The case was brought by the Director General of Fair Trading on behalf of consumers.
Liverpool City Council v Irwin [1976] UKHL 1 is a leading English contract law case, concerning the basis on which courts may imply terms into contracts; in particular in relation to all types of tenancies, a term may be implied if required for a particular relationship, such as for the landlord to keep the stairwells clear in a tower block. The tenants also had a duty of reasonable care which some among them had been repeatedly breached and led to a continuing breach in matters of damage about which they complained so they were not entitled to withhold rent on the facts.
William Sindall plc v Cambridgeshire County Council [1993] EWCA Civ 14 is an English contract law case, concerning misrepresentation. It concerns the exercise of discretion under s 2(2) Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Johnstone v Bloomsbury Health Authority [1992] QB 333 is an English contract law case, concerning implied terms and unfair terms under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.
Unfair terms in English contract law are regulated under three major pieces of legislation, compliance with which is enforced by the Office of Fair Trading. The Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 is the first main Act, which covers some contracts that have exclusion and limitation clauses. For example, it will not extend to cover contracts which are mentioned in Schedule I, consumer contracts, and international supply contracts. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 replaced the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and bolstered further requirements for consumer contracts. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 concerns certain sales practices.
Cheltenham & Gloucester Building Society v Norgan [1996] 1 WLR 343 is an English land law case, concerning mortgage arrears.
Mortgages in English law are a method of raising capital through a loan contract. Typically with a bank, the lender/mortgagee gives money to the borrower/mortgagor, who uses their property/land/home as security that they will repay the debt and any relevant interest. If the mortgagor fails to repay, then the mortgaged property which has been used as security may be subject to various mortgagee remedies allowing them to retrieve the debt. Mortgages are an important part of English land law and property law. These concern, first, the common law, statutory and regulatory rules to protect the mortgagor at the time of concluding the mortgage agreement. Second, English law defines and restricts the process for taking possession of property in the event of default. Third, it places duties on mortgagees on the price it achieves when selling property.
Commerzbank AG v Keen [2006] EWCA Civ 1536 is a UK labour law case, concerning the construction of terms in a contract of employment.
National Westminster Bank plc v Morgan[1985] UKHL 2 is a judicial decision of the House of Lords relating to English contract law and the doctrine of undue influence. The case is most well known for the comments of Lord Scarman about the supposed requirement of "manifest disadvantage" to set aside a contract for undue influence.
Cavendish Square Holding BV v Talal El Makdessi[2015] UKSC 67, together with its companion case ParkingEye Ltd v Beavis, are English contract law cases concerning the validity of penalty clauses and the application of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive. The UK Supreme Court ruled on both cases together on 4 November 2015, updating the established legal rule on penalty clauses and replacing the test of whether or not a disputed clause is "a genuine pre-estimate of loss" with a test asking whether it imposed a proportionate detriment in relation to any "legitimate interest" of the innocent party.
Mallone v BPB Industries plc [2002] EWCA Civ 126 is a UK labour law case, concerning control of an employer's discretion.