Cs sought interest that is statutory the contractual price charged by D (29% each month); the Judge rejected CsвЂ™ first rationale (that it was the price C needed to pay to borrow funds) and stated this method must be on a commercial situations.
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 in the facts of the specific instance.
Comprehensive judgment text available right right here: Kerrigan v Elevate
Overview by Ruth Bala, counsel for the creditor.
- Latest News
- 19 December DecemberвЂ™s PLC Column: Amended Default Notice Demands
- 01 NovemberвЂ™s PLC Column: FCA Payment Deferrals Guidance december
- 24 November brand new article on вЂњloot boxesвЂќ and customer legislation
- See all news >