Case law

  • Case Details
    • National ID: [2014] UKSC 50
    • Member State: United Kingdom
    • Common Name:N/A
    • Decision type: Supreme court decision
    • Decision date: 09/09/2014
    • Court: Supreme Court
    • Subject:
    • Plaintiff: Robertson
    • Defendant: Swift
    • Keywords: B2C, cancellation of contract, consumer's home, doorstep selling, right of cancellation
  • Directive Articles
    Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 1 Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 4 Doorstep Selling Directive, Article 5
  • Headnote
    A trader's failure to give a consumer written notice of his right to cancel a contract under the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home or Place of Work etc. Regulations 2008 (the "Regulations") did not deprive the consumer of the right to cancel under regulation 7(1).
  • Facts
    The plaintiff engaged the defendant to provide him with a removal service. At the plaintiff's request, the defendant went to the plaintiff's home where, after some negotiation, they agreed a price for the work. The same day, the defendant emailed an "acceptance document" to the plaintiff. That evening, the defendant visited the plaintiff's home, where the plaintiff signed the acceptance document and paid a deposit. Two days later, the plaintiff told the defendant that he wished to cancel the contract. When the plaintiff refused to pay a cancellation charge, the defendant issued proceedings. The plaintiff counterclaimed for the return of his deposit, arguing that he had been entitled to cancel by virtue of regulation 7(1) of the Regulations.

    The Court of Appeal decided (among other things) that the Regulations applied if the contract had been concluded in the consumer's home and that the plaintiff could not recover his deposit because the defendant had not given the plaintiff written notice of his right to cancel, as required by regulation 7(2). The Court of Appeal held that the failure to give notice mean that the seven-day period in which the contract could be cancelled did not start to run, and therefore no entitlement to cancel arose. The plaintiff appealed against that part of the judgement.
  • Legal issue
    Was the trader's performance of its obligation to notify the consumer of the right to cancel a prerequisite to the consumer's right to cancel under the Regulations?
  • Decision

    The Supreme Court held that the requirement for the trader to notify the consumer of the right to cancel was not a prerequisite for the cancellation right to arise; rather it was a means of ensuring that the consumer was aware that he is entitled to cancel the contract after a period of reflection. A consumer would have the right to cancel at any time before the cancellation period which would either expire 7 days after the consumer received notice of the right to cancel or, if no such notice was served, would not expire so the consumer could cancel at any time.

    URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKSC/2014/50.html

    Full text: Full text

  • Related Cases

    No results available

  • Legal Literature

    No results available

  • Result
    Appeal was allowed.