Legal Updates


Accidentally  releasing a mortgage can be costly for secured lenders. However the recent ruling by the Court of Appeal in NRAM Ltd v Evans [2017 ] EWHC Civ confirms the Courts in some circumstances will come to the rescue.

 In 2004 Mr and Mrs Evans bought their home with the help of an advance from Northern Rock which was secured by a mortgage deed registered at the Land…

Templars Estates Limited and Others v National Westminster Bank [2016] EWHC 2020 Comm

A recent case confirms the willingness of the Courts to allow consumers to follow their preferred route of complaining to the FOS, even where legal proceedings had already been issued

Morby v Gate Gourmet Luxembourg and Another

Morby v Gate Gourmet Luxembourg and another is a further example of the courts taking a pragmatic approach to deciding whether legal documents have been served.


A recent case heard in London has clarified what constitutes “personal service” in the context of legal documents.

Who Has The Final Say on What FOS Can Decide?

The importance of the role played by the FOS in resolving financial disputes is demonstrated by the fact that its decisions can only be challenged by judicial review, rather than by the usual appeal process.

Consumer Complaints: FOS or the High Court?

Recent case law suggests there will be increased scrutiny over decisions by the FOS about the extent of its own jurisdiction.


The recent court rulings in Tidal Energy Limited v Bank of Scotland have highlighted the potential risk of sending payments through the Clearing Houses Automated Payment System (“CHAPS”).

Getting In First?

The High Court has confirmed attempts to obtain an Individual Voluntary Arrangement will not automatically block legitimate enforcement of a judgment.

ARROW v FROST-Success for Debt Purchasers

In Arrow Global Guernsey Limited v Frost [2013] EW Misc 27 (CC) Mr Recorder Monty QC awarded judgment to Arrow in a claim for monies owed on a credit card.


Lenders had hoped that the Court of Appeal ruling in Harrison v Black Horse had shut the door on PPI/unfair relationship claims. Particularly welcome was the ruling that compliance with an industry specific rule governing the sale of insurance (the “ICOB” rules) should effectively block any allegation of unfair relationship brought under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. However The Court of Appeal’s decision at the end of last year in the conjoined appeals of Conlon v Black Horse and Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance means this issue will remain in the legal limelight. Both cases involved the sale of a single premium PPI policy with the policy for Mrs Plevin being arranged by a broker.

Our Core Values