Consumer “Handcuffed” by Previous Consent Order

legal updates

The judge read the consent order and the email from the customer’s solicitor and declined the customer’s application.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

One of our clients had the most unusual of scenarios to contend with. A customer issued legal proceedings against our client, even though the car was sold to the customer by a finance company. Our client did not reply to the claim in time and ended up with a default judgment against them. We wrote to the customer explaining that our client would be applying to the court (with costs) to have the default judgment set aside on the basis that they were not a party to the contract the customer had. The customer’s contract was only with the finance company.

The customer took legal advice and his solicitor agreed. His solicitor drew up a consent order agreeing for the default judgment to be set aside, for the claim against our client to be withdrawn, and that each party would bear their own legal costs. This was endorsed by the court.

18 months later, it is established the customer brought the exact same claim against the finance company as he did against our client. The finance company defended the claim. At the hearing, the customer starts pointing the finger at our client. Unaware of the consent order, the judge adjourned proceedings and gave the customer permission to apply to the court to add our client as a second defendant to the claim, which he duly did.

Our client made a strong objection to this on the basis that it is wholly inappropriate for a party to a formal court consent order to be allowed to ask the court to vary it to such an extent that the whole purpose of the consent order would be essentially reversed. With a good dollop of common sense, the judge read the consent order and the email from the customer’s solicitor and declined the customer’s application. Parties to a consent order have the security of knowing that it remains in place except in exceptional circumstances.

The customer was thus handcuffed by his own consent order. Interestingly though, the judge did say that she may have been persuaded to allow the application to succeed had the customer not taken legal advice and/or had a solicitor draw it up. Her rationale was that he may have acted naively and not known what the implications of signing a consent order were. Of course, whether that was simply said to ease the disappointment of the deflated customer – or whether she ever would have allowed our client to be added to the claim – we shall (thankfully) never know.

The motto here is that it is very difficult for a person to “wriggle out” of a formal settlement agreement where they have largely proposed or drafted the terms of that agreement. And if they do so after having obtained legal advice, then they are quite likely to be both handcuffed and super-glued to it. 

Octane FinanceFuel Your Finance

Octane Finance is the broker of choice for new and used car dealers nationwide. With our uncompromising service levels and our genuine and professional approach, you and your customers can trust us to deliver.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Judges want expert reports

Expert reports are vital to help judges fairly resolve motor trade disputes and determine faults at sale.

Nominal Damages

The aim of the court in civil litigation is to put the parties back in the position they were in had the contract not been breached.

Look what you could have won!

The judge was of the view that it would be inappropriate to require our client to proceed blind or adjourn and prejudice their position.

Strange things are afoot with the Online Claims Portal!

It is now absolutely imperative that all claims received by clients are forwarded to us upon receipt as any delay might prove fatal to one’s cause.

Your Evidence Is Vital

As opposing witnesses give different accounts of what has happened, some cases really will hinge on which version of events the judge prefers.

Claim Dismissed: No Proof of Fault at Purchase

Our member argued that numerous issues could have caused the overheating and ultimate failure.

Finance Company Unhappy with Court Ruling

The court found that the claim and particulars were inadequate and the finance company was told they had to submit a compliant claim/particulars.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.