FML Timeline: Binns v Firstplus Financial Group

To print a complete version of this article, click the PDF on the top right. Facts

The Claimants alleged that they were mis-sold PPI relating to two credit agreements sold by the Defendant and made, via their solicitors, a claim against the Defendant under an ADR scheme set up by the FSA.

The ADR scheme made an award giving full monetary compensation for the losses incurred, but no legal costs.

The Claimants commenced proceedings in the Kingston-Upon-Hull County Court on the basis that they desired their costs, whereas under the ADR scheme the Claimants were not entitled to costs.

The Defendant applied to strike out the claim and/or summary judgment on the basis that the Claimants had already secured compensation under the ADR scheme and, in consequence, the Claim was an abuse of the process of the Court.

The application was dismissed by the County Court and the Defendant appealed the decision.

Decision

Judge Jeremy Richardson QC, sitting as a High Court judge, held that litigants should ordinarily follow the ADR route when there is a perfectly good scheme that offers speedy justice; and full redress, and that the Court should strike out cases where there has been full redress already.

The continued pursuit of the claim to obtain a potential costs advantage was not a proportionate use of the court's valuable resources, or an appropriate way to resolve such a dispute.

If a claim has succeeded in every way via ADR, it cannot be said that there are reasonable grounds for bringing the claim under CPR Part 3.4 (2)(a). On this basis, the claim was struck out in its entirety.

It was noted that the ADR offer under the FCA scheme, which offered full redress to the Claimants, was still open at the time the decision was made.

Noteworthy/ Novel points

Where a litigant can achieve full redress via an effective alternative remedy, he or she will have no reasonable grounds for bringing a claim.