header-logo header-logo

24 February 2021
Issue: 7922 / Categories: Legal News , Insolvency
printer mail-detail

Consumer protection applies in litigation

An agreement scheduled to a Tomlin order can be a regulated consumer credit agreement and therefore unenforceable if there was non-compliance or the creditor was not authorised, the Court of Appeal has held.

Handing down the lead judgment in CFL Finance v Gertner [2021] EWCA Civ 228, Lord Justice Newey said the case ‘raises an important and difficult issue as to when, if ever, the Consumer Credit Act 1974 (CCA) applies to agreements settling litigation’.

Finding in Gertner’s favour, Newey LJ said: ‘If the settlement agreement provided "credit" within the meaning of the CCA, I do not see why the fact that it served to settle the proceedings CFL had brought against Mr Gertner should preclude application of the CCA.’

A Tomlin order is a court order staying a court action on terms agreed between the parties involved. The case concerned a bankruptcy petition, which followed a dispute over a loan. CFL had lent £3.5m to a company owned by the Gertner family, to which Moises Gertner gave a personal guarantee.

Fred Philpott, Gough Square, who acted for Gertner, said: ‘The court held that there was a genuine dispute as to whether the underlying agreement was regulated and unenforceable.

‘The crux of the decision was that if there was an undisputed debt and the creditor agreed to accept payments by instalments, this could be a regulated consumer credit agreement. If it was issues as to the status of the debtor (eg limited company or “large” partnership or not) and whether the creditor was making the agreement by way of business will be relevant.

‘If there was a genuine dispute as to the debt which led to the settlement (whether in a Tomlin order or not), the legislation would not impact. Where the “dividing line” fell did not in the case need to be decided.’
Issue: 7922 / Categories: Legal News , Insolvency
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll