An appeal to overturn a decision that a claim
of mis-sold of payment protection insurance (PPI) should be
allocated to the fast track, and not moved to the small claims
track, has been rejected.
His Honour Judge Jonathan Simpkiss rejected
the appeal in the case of Linda Loughlin v Black Horse
Limited (2012), whereby Ms Loughlin, represented by Wixted
& Co Limited, was claiming just over £2,000 for the alleged
mis-selling of PPI.
Go deeper with GlobalData
HHJ Simpkiss rejected Ms Loughlin’s claim she
failed to take into account an alleged unenforceability claim and
that the limitation defence and alleged breaches of the General
Insurance Standards Council’s Code of Conduct meant the case was
complex, and should therefore not remain on the small claims
track.
The appeal that the parties would be on an
unequal footing on the small claims track as Wixted & Co would
no longer represent Ms Loughlin was also rejected.
Russell Kelsall, senior associate at Squire
Sanders LLP, said the decision demonstrated the “changing tide” to
have
PPI claims under £5,000 moved to the small claims track first
demonstrated in the ruling of Gillies v Black Horse
Limited (2011), itself following the case of Harrison
& Harrison v Black Horse Limited (2011) in which it was
established
there was no basis to distinguish PPI from other products sold
without warning of high expense.
“Since Gillies, there has, in our experience, been a
considerable sea change in allocation,” said Kelsall in his notes
on the case which, together with Loughlin, showed “PPI
claims are no longer complex and if the value of the claim is
£5,000 or less it should (as a matter of judicial comity or
judicial discretion) be allocated to the small claims track.”
US Tariffs are shifting - will you react or anticipate?
Don’t let policy changes catch you off guard. Stay proactive with real-time data and expert analysis.
By GlobalDatarichard.brown@vrlfinancialnews.com
