Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Joint account holder liable for entire loan despite lack of direct agreement with bank
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal from the High Court, and affirmed a decision that a joint account holder must repay the full amount of a loan used for the benefit of a household, despite not having directly agreed to the loan with the financial institution. The original decision by the High Court found that the individual had not signed any loan documentation and had not met with bank officials, but had knowingly benefited from the loan proceeds. The Court of Appeal affirmed the original decision, determining that the individual was unjustly enriched and therefore liable for restitution, rejecting the defense of "no knowing receipt" due to the individual's awareness of the benefits received from the loan.
joint account, loan repayment, unjust enrichment, restitution, knowing receipt, Consumer Credit Act 1995, family finances, benefit, household expenses, Court of Appeal, High Court, financial institution, loan documentation, signature forgery, liability, defense, enrichment at the expense of the bank.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
