Document Sample
Director_General_of_Fair_Trading_v_First_National_Bank_plc Powered By Docstoc
					From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc

Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc
Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc

Condition 8 of the bank’s standard loan contract allowed the bank to get its standard interest rate after a judgment on repayment when a customer defaulted. Usually lower statutory interest rates apply under the County Court (Interest on Judgment Debts) Order 1991, but this it excluded judgment debts on consumer credit agreements under the Consumer Credit Act 1974. So the bank wanted condition 8 to get the money it would have in interest even after someone had been unable to pay. Under r 8 of the 1994 Reg’s (now r 12) the DG sought an injunction to stop the bank using the term, because it was unfair. Lord Goodhart submitted that the term merely concerned the adequacy of the bank’s remuneration, therefore fell under r 3(2) (now r 6(2)). The DG submitted it was a core term and unfair because complaints were made and the 1991 Order had excluded interest.

House of Lords Citations Transcripts Case opinions Lord Bingham, Lord Steyn [2001] UKHL 52 Full text of judgment

Lord Bingham, held that it was not a core term (i.e. the adequacy of the bank’s remuneration) but ‘an ancillary provision’. [12] He said the concept of good faith under r 5(1) had an old (if hidden) English tradition, it was championed by Lord Mansfield and ‘looks to good standards of commercial morality and practice’ It is fair and open dealing, preventing unfair surprise and the absence of real choice. [17] Despite that the clause was fair. ‘There is noting unbalanced or detrimental to the consumer in that obligation [to repay with interest]; the absence of such a term would unbalance the contract to the detriment of the lender.’ The 1991 Order and the 1974 Act’s interaction, whereby interest had been excluded, did not make the term an unfair way of

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 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 although the clause fell within the Regulations (r 6(2)) it was fair (r 5(1)) and valid. The case was brought by the Director General of Fair Trading (now the Office of Fair Trading) on behalf of consumers.


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Director General of Fair Trading v First National Bank plc
substantive unfairness is encompassed within the meaning of r 5(1). He also asks whether the court should have deferred to the DG’s view of what was unfair, recognising respective institutional competence.

circumventing legislation, because the Act had not prohibited post-judgment interest being payable. Lord Steyn said, ‘The system of pre-emptive challenges is a more effective way of preventing the continuing use of unfair terms and changing contraccting practice than ex casu actions: see Susan Bright, ‘Winning the battle against unfair contract terms’ (2000) 20 LS 331, 333-8.’ He added that he was initially persuaded by the idea that because the legislation had excluded interest, the court could not, but had then decided that because the legislation did not exclude expressly or by necessary implication that interest can accrue, the contract term was fair. Lord Hope, Millett and Rodger concurred.

See also
• Bairstow Eves London Central Ltd v Smith [2004] EWHC 263 • Walford v Miles [1992] 2 AC 128, Bingham LJ dissented in the Court of Appeal. The majority held that an agreement to negotiate in good faith was too uncertain, and there is no general duty of disclosure. • Principles of European Contract Law Art.1:201 say ‘each party must act in accordance with good faith and fair dealing’.

• E Macdonald (2002) 65 Modern Law Review 763

Andrew Burrows, 298, says that because good faith was said to mean ‘fair and open dealing’ and ‘significant imbalance’ meant ‘substantive unfairness’, both procedural and

External links
• Full text of judgment

Retrieved from tional_Bank_plc"


Categories: English contract case law This page was last modified on 22 May 2009, at 23:33 (UTC). All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) taxdeductible nonprofit charity. Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers


Shared By: