Bradford & Bingley plc v. Rashid (Record no. 78450)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02381cab a2200205 4500
001 - CONTROL NUMBER
control field L136803
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 070223n2006 000 0 eng u
035 ## - SYSTEM CONTROL NUMBER
System control number (Sirsi) u136803
041 ## - LANGUAGE CODE
Language code of text/sound track or separate title eng
245 00 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Bradford & Bingley plc v. Rashid
Medium [electronic resource]
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 2006
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. [2006] UKHL 37, 12 July 2006. The appellant bank claimed the shortfall due from the respondent (Rashid) on a joint mortgage debt he had incurred with a relation. The shortfall had arisen following a forced sale in the last property recession. Rashid's only defence was that the claim was statute-barred, the original default having arisen more than 12 years before the issue of the claim. The judge held that a letter written by an advice centre on Rashid's behalf, explaining that he could not afford to pay "the outstanding balance", had acknowledged the debt, and that therefore, under the Limitation Act 1980 S29(5) time had begun to run afresh from the date of the letter and the proceedings were not statute-barred. The judge concluded that a second letter offering a lesser sum in settlement had been written impliedly without prejudice and so was inadmissible. The Court of Appeal concluded that both letters had been written impliedly without prejudice and were inadmissible. Rashid submitted that in neither letter had the debt been admitted and that unless there was an admission of a definite amount due or an amount ascertainable by mere calculation there was no acknowledgment for the purposes of the Act. "Held": it was decided that each of the letters constituted a clear acknowledgement of the debt. The without prejudice rule had no application to apparently open communications, such as those in this case, that were designed only to discuss the repayment of an admitted liability rather than to negotiate and compromise a disputed liability. The letters did not contain statements or offers made with a view to settling a dispute; as the debt was admitted, there was no dispute. The bank's appeal was allowed.
590 ## - LOCAL NOTE (RLIN)
Local note KA
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element BRADFORD & BINGLEY PLC V RASHID
650 24 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element LIMITATION ACT 1980 S29
651 #4 - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--GEOGRAPHIC NAME
Geographic name England
Chronological subdivision 886-
690 ## - LOCAL SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM (OCLC, RLIN)
Topical term or geographic name as entry element Residential property
9 (RLIN) 6266
856 40 - ELECTRONIC LOCATION AND ACCESS
Uniform Resource Identifier <a href="https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060712/brad-1.htm">https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldjudgmt/jd060712/brad-1.htm</a>
Public note View the decision free of charge at www.publications.parliament.uk
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Suppress in OPAC 0
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Source of classification or shelving scheme Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Shelving location Date acquired Total Checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Copy number Price effective from Koha item type
    Dewey Decimal Classification     Virtual Virtual Online 23/02/2007   ONLINE PUBLICATION 136803-1001 06/08/2019 1 06/08/2019 Law report