Cs sought statutory interest at the contractual price charged by D (29% per month); the Judge rejected CsвЂ™ first rationale (that this is the price C needed to pay to borrow funds) and stated this method ought to be limited to commercial cases.
224: CsвЂ™ second argument had been that Cs could have utilized the surplus funds to settle other HCST loans вЂ“ there could be more merit to this argument, nonetheless it will be better explored on the facts of the case that is particular.
Complete judgment text available right here: Kerrigan v Elevate
Overview by Ruth Bala, counsel when it comes to creditor.
- Latest News
- 19 December DecemberвЂ™s PLC Column: Amended Default Notice Needs
- 01 December NovemberвЂ™s PLC Column: FCA Payment Deferrals Guidance
- 24 New article on вЂњloot boxesвЂќ and consumer law november
- See all news >