Martin Budworth acted for the successful Appellant in the case of Berry v Black Horse Ltd which has established that, contrary to the apparent understanding from prior senior authority, no limitation period in fact applies to “unfair relationship” claims under sections 140A-C of the Consumer Credit Act 1974.
In theory, consumer lenders could face claims concerning agreements that ended decades ago.
The Appellant, Mr Berry, bought a car in June 2005 and alleged that the credit broker commissions were not adequately disclosed. A district judge dismissed his claim in February 2024, holding that a six-year limitation period had begun when the lending relationship ended.
His Honour Judge Glen sitting at Southampton on appeal agreed that the claim could not be considered time-barred and should therefore be remitted.
The Appellant argued that parallel reasoning to that articulated by the Supreme Court recently concerning unfair prejudice petitions must apply: in THG v Zedra Trust Company (Jersey) [2026] the Supreme Court ruled that unfair-prejudice petitions under the Companies Act 2006 are not governed by the Limitation Act 1980.
Black Horse maintained that the law had long been understood to impose a limitation period. It relied on Smith v Royal Bank of Scotland [2023], where both parties had accepted that a six-year period applied and the Supreme Court considered only when time began to run. The lender also argued that THG concerned a different statutory jurisdiction with a greater range of remedies.
Judge Glen allowed the appeal, finding no material distinction between the two regimes. Earlier cases had certainly been decided on the common ground that unfair-relationship claims were subject to a limitation period, but no court had actually been asked directly to determine whether that proposition was legally correct.
The Judge acknowledged the “potential ramifications” of this decision and the likelihood of a further appeal. He noted that the issue had been raised in Parliament already.
In Berry (appellant) v Black Horse (respondent), the appellant was represented by Martin Budworth of Kings Chambers, instructed by Consumer Rights Solicitors. The respondent was represented by Simon Salzedo KC of Brick Court Chambers and Iain MacDonald of Gough Square Chambers, instructed by TLT LLP.
Join our mailing list if you want to be kept up to date with our future seminars & conferences.
