Court dismisses appeal in Barclays Bank unfair relationship claim

Background

The County Court at Middlesbrough recently addressed an appeal concerning costs awarded against Steven Orton, the claimant, in a dispute with Barclays Bank UK Plc, trading as Barclaycard. The case revolved around allegations of an unfair relationship under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Initially, Mr. Orton sought damages valued between £1,500 and £3,000, claiming an unfair relationship with the bank.

Initial Proceedings

The claim was originally filed on 10 July 2023, with a provisional quantum assessment of £2,750.78. The case was allocated to the small claims track, and several procedural hearings followed. During these proceedings, issues arose regarding the signing of the claim form and particulars of claim, which were subsequently addressed by court directions.

Discontinuance and Costs

On 7 June 2024, Mr. Orton's solicitors filed a notice of discontinuance for the entire claim. This led to a subsequent hearing to consider costs, where District Judge Lindsay found Mr. Orton had behaved unreasonably pursuant to CPR 27.14(2)(g) and ordered him to pay the defendant's costs. The claimant's request for leave to appeal was initially refused, but later granted upon oral representations.

Appeal Hearing

The appeal centred on whether the District Judge had erred in finding unreasonable conduct. The claimant argued that the discontinuance was for commercial reasons and not indicative of unreasonable behaviour. The appeal court, presided over by His Honour Judge Robinson BEM, reviewed the decision and the correspondence between the parties.

Judgment

Judge Robinson upheld the District Judge's decision, noting the claimant's failure to engage meaningfully with the defendant's offers and correspondence. The court found that the claimant's decision to discontinue the claim for commercial reasons, without responding to the defendant's detailed analysis, constituted unreasonable conduct.

Legal Analysis

The judgment referenced the guidance from Dammermann v Lanyon Bowder LLP, emphasizing that unreasonable behaviour must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. The court found that the claimant's conduct did not permit a reasonable explanation, particularly given the clear communications from the defendant's solicitors.

Conclusion

The appeal was dismissed, and the costs order against Mr. Orton was upheld. The court reiterated the importance of engaging with opposing parties' correspondence and the potential consequences of failing to do so.

Learn More

For more information on consumer credit disputes, see BeCivil's guide to English Data Protection Law.

Copyright & permissions