Sorry, perhaps I didn't make myself clear! I am not stuck with any costs, the entire judgment and all associated costs were set aside because the whole trial judgment was fundamentally flawed. I did try to explain this in post 1732 As far as Harrison goes, yes it is precedent for what it is but it's not applicable to my case. The precedent in my case still remains as Hurstanger, in the Harrison case the lender RECEIVED a commission which is no way what I alleged welcome did and not remotely what they admitted at trial and appeal. Welcome, just like Hurstanger, PAID a commission which is still categorised as a special type of fraud according to the relevant case law. If it were the case that Harrison and Hurstanger were comparable then surely Hurstanger would have been argued by the Harrisons?? I would never even begin to question the decisions made by the UK's best academic lawyer! If you Google 'Lord Justice Jack Beatson' you will soon realise that we all pale into insignificance when compared to the accolade of this highly educated and greatly admired appeal Judge. If Sir Jack Beatson says it is so then it is so!! I do believe, but cannot state as fact, that it may have been Sir Beatson's intention that the other side make an offer to settle having lost the appeal and it centred around a relatively small amount of money. Even afterwards I gave them the opportunity to call it quits and walk away, all I ever wanted was justice - and I got it, but unfortunately the decision was made on behalf welcome, (who incidentally weren't present at the hearing), to decline my offer! The damage is done; the case law is approved and can now be used by anyone. Personally I am extremely happy with the way this has turned out! There are a lot of people out there with commission sheets from welcome... I'm not going to repeat myself, the issues surrounding Section 92 are dealt with in the judgment and they include trespass and injunctive relief, this can now be applied to any other case of breach of S.92 Not to forget the Unfair Relationships provisions.... The judgment makes it clear that the case is remitted in order for a district judge to make a ruling on UR based on the findings of the High Court, I have no doubt that the DJ will read the entire transcript and decide what is classed as fair and what is not. I honestly and truly do not give a monkeys about the money, if I have to pay I will pay, if they have to pay I will make a donation to CAG and invest in my children's future, simples.

It was both. The court decided to hear my permission first and then, if it was granted, hear the appeal straight after. When I got to court the Lord Justice said to provide submissions as if it were one hearing. After hearing the submissions and looking at the evidence he gave permission and then took a rise to consider his judgment on the appeal. When he came back he allowed the appeal too and gave the judgment as you see it here

Mark!! So glad to see you back! Thank you my friend, we've come a long way eh?!! x And for anybody that wants it or can use it in any way, here is the proper copy of the transcript Surita x Whittington_v_Welcome_Financial_Services_Ltd_Approved_Judgment__OTM00272-1.pdf

That's beautiful, thank you x I've waited so long to see that

Hello! No it didn't, there was never any question raised over the definition of premises at any stage. Their defence was always that they didn't step on to the premises, they just reached over from the pavement. However when we got to trial the judge took one look at the photos of the agent standing on my premises and disregarded that part of their defence anyway While you're here Seq, do you think I may have earned the right to have my thread title changed?

Ok, I know it looks very complicated-and it is! I'll do my bestest to summarise Firstly, it was absolutely nothing to do with the money. I appealed because the trial judgment was blatantly wrong. When my appeal was heard an incredibly, incredibly senior High Court Judge agreed with me that the first judgment was very wrong and so he set aside the whole thing. When a case goes before a Judge in High Court or higher the judgment becomes precedent and binding on all similar cases. So now every word that Lord Justice Beatson said can be relied on in any future case in which any of the issues dealt with in my case arise again. For example: Say for instance somebody were to make a claim that a company had paid a secret commission to a broker at the inception of a regulated agreement and had the underwriting sheet to corroborate their claim. That person would now have the option to make a claim for Unfair Relationship according to S.140 of the CCA. Say for instance that the company defended the claim using the argument of causation and attempting to use the Harrison case as relevant case law to defend their actions, the claimant would now be able use my case to substantiate their claim and discredit the defendant's defence. In any case, the Harrison judgment is entirely non-applicable as that case involves the RECEIPT of secret commission by the lender whereas my case involves the PAYMENT of secret commission by the lender, it was for that reason that Hurstanger is applicable as opposed to Harrison. Lord Justice Beatson has also made reference to the statutory, regulatory regime and the Unfair Relationship provisions stating that the trial judgment did not take these factors into account when it should have! In a rather large nutshell, if a lender has paid a secret commission to a broker in exchange for the sale of their finance and PPI etc to a borrower, this is still considered a special category of fraud according to Hurstanger PLUS now it would also fall under the provisions of Unfair Relationship and Statutory Regime too Not to mention the bit about S.92 of the CCA! There is now English case law that corroborates that a lender is not permitted to enter ANY premises to repossess goods WITHOUT A COURT ORDER, damages for which are akin to damages for trespass and loss. It also states that the consumer is entitled to injunctive relief, i.e. within their rights to obtain an injunction against a lender that may be threatening to trespass. Just out of curiosity..I wonder how fair it would be to a debtor for an agent to refuse to allow the debtor the option to exercise their right to injunctive relief?? Hmmm..... The other points aren't referred back because the outcome wouldn't have been significantly different. That doesn't mean to say that the mistakes made by the first judge weren't rectified! It is perfectly clear from this transcript that the trial judge made a grave error when giving his judgment. Lord Justice Beatson has effectively stated that a court order is needed for the repossession of goods on any premises irrespective of the amount paid on the agreement. Personally, I believe that if a High Court Judge sets aside an entire judgment because it was wrong and refers it back to the County Court for them to 'think again' and do it properly this time based on his findings, I find it somewhat unlikely that a district judge will be inclined to disagree... but that's just my humble opinion as usual ;-) We will be going back to County Court in January...good things come to those who wait

Basically, in a nutshell, the Lord Justice said the original judgment was wrong and it should be sent back to County Court for them to 'think again'. Actually, I believe he took that course of action to allow for an out of court settlement to see an end to the matter. Unfortunately, such an agreement was not forthcoming so we will be going back to court in January for a District Judge to make the final decision.

Does anybody know if the increase in LiP costs that came into force on 1st October 2011 are retrospective???

Ok sorry about the odd font sizing but here we go! My name is Mrs Surita Caleini, formerly Whittington, and this is the transcript of my successful appeal in Birmingham High Court of Justice on 11th July 2011 before The Honourable Lord Justice Beatson QC.

Ok, give me 5 and I'll see what I can cobble together!

Ok I will do what I can to scan and post it up. I was just a bit concerned about anonymity rules and whether this judgment is now mine to show whomever I like? Any ideas anyone???

I would but I only just received it hard copy today, hopefully I can get it in doc on Monday from the transcribers. It is quite exquisite! It's got some wonderful phrases in it ;-) "If there was a relevant agency relationship, the decision in Hurstanger Ltd v Wilson & Anor..., shows that causation is not a factor where a person makes a secret payment to an agent" "I have concluded that although the claimant's grounds of appeal are framed by her as a lay person, they do disclose and have disclosed a matter which requires this judgment to be set aside...." "However, in the light of what has happened, there is no point or purpose now in an injunction. The remedy for this lady is one in damages..." - ( Section 92)

Well I have finally received the approved transcript of the High Court Judgment Does anybody have any ideas of how I might be permitted to distribute it? I suppose now it is approved there aren't any restrictions on what I can do with it?? The other side have made it clear that this thread is no longer anonymous, by the way “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

That's great! If you have evidence that they have behaved dishonestly then they deserve to be called up on it. If you do ever want to take it further with welcome then I am more than happy to share my experiences with you ;-)

Hmmm... how far along with the process are you? Is it at court stage yet?

And...I just got my FSCS letter! How absurd this all is, they spent all that time in court saying it wasn't welcome that sold me the policy and so I couldn't claim misselling against them and then they go and send me a letter saying they believe the policy THEY sold me may have been missold! Yet more voluntary ammunition for the credibility issue....

Thank you, all your support has been invaluable. Don't worry, my head is not turned by money

Oh and the new case law is on its way and will be distributed far and wide

One thing I will say on open forum is that this case will never be dealt with outside of court. With regard compensation, damages or costs, there is no amount of money that will ever be enough to cover what welcome finance have done to me and hundreds of thousands of others. Lives have been ruined, relationships lost, health destroyed and suicides contemplated because of the immoral and unlawful standards these kind of people and their associates employ. The only recompense that will ever suffice is justice. And that is my opinion...which I am fully entitled to express anywhere I see fit. The last time I checked I believed we still had free speech in this country.

Oh yes but I can't post on open forum

Good for you Don't forget the release from liability, you don't want this rearing it's ugly head ever again!! x

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1128.html What a travesty

Not good

Baited breath doesn't even come close!!!!