Cs sought statutory interest at the contractual price charged by D (29% each month); the Judge rejected CsвЂ™ first rationale (that it was the rate C needed to spend to borrow cash) and stated this method must be on a commercial situations.
224: CsвЂ™ second argument had been that Cs could have utilized the extra funds to settle other HCST loans вЂ“ there could be more merit to that particular argument, however it is better explored regarding the facts of the specific situation.
Comprehensive judgment text available right 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 NovemberвЂ™s PLC Column: FCA Payment Deferrals Guidance december
- 24 New article on вЂњloot boxesвЂќ and consumer law november
- See all news >