Universal Credit Ltd v Anderson & Anor

On a second-appeal permission application, the court may grant permission where a proposed ground is arguable and raises a point of some general importance. A challenge that an agreed variation of a regulated credit agreement required statutory formalities under sections 82 and 61–63 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 met that threshold, although the court did not decide the merits. The court expressed considerable doubt that Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights added anything to the common-law requirements of a fair trial. Permission and a stay of execution were granted on both proposed grounds.

Universal Credit Ltd obtained judgment against Mr and Mrs Anderson in the Northampton County Court for £18,017.89, with interest at 25.7 per cent. Judge Mayor QC had allowed an appeal from District Judge Elliott’s earlier judgment for £5,457.97, payable at £100 per month.

The Andersons sought permission for a second appeal. Their grounds included the omission of their witness statement from the trial bundle, the alleged variation of the regulated loan agreement in February 2000, and reliance on Article 6. The central statutory issue was whether the variation fell within section 82 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 and therefore required the formalities in sections 61–63.

Applications for permission to appeal and stay of execution allowed.

1. This was an application for permission to pursue a second appeal. The court granted permission on both proposed grounds because the statutory point was arguable and appeared to be of some general importance.
2. The statutory point concerned whether the February 2000 variation of the regulated loan agreement was a variation within section 82 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974, requiring completion with the statutory formalities, especially those in sections 61–63. The court did not determine whether that contention was ultimately correct.
3. The court also allowed the procedural ground concerning the apparent omission of the defendants’ witness statement from the trial bundle. It expressed considerable doubt whether Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights added anything to the existing common law concerning a fair trial.
4. The order granting permission also allowed a stay of execution.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Permission to appeal and a stay of execution were allowed: [2002] EWCA Civ 325.
2. Northampton County Court, Judge Mayor QC, 14 December 2001: Judgment was given for Universal Credit Ltd for £18,017.89, with interest at 25.7 per cent, on an appeal from the district judge.
3. Northampton County Court, District Judge Elliott, 17 October 2001: Judgment was given for £5,457.97, payable at £100 per month.