Bradley Say

Chambers & Partners ranks Gough Square as Number 1 for Consumer Law

November 3, 2023

• London Scottish Finance Limited (In Administration), re Jack v Craig [2013] EWHC 4047 (Ch): a landmark decision in which the Chancellor held that debtors under regulated agreements had potential claims under section 140A CCA 1974 for the repayment of sums paid by them in respect of irredeemably unenforceable agreements where those payments were encouraged by the creditor stating that the loan agreements could be enforced by taking possession proceedings;
• Consolidated/Amalgamated Finance Cases: ongoing litigation concerning this lender and whether its agreements are regulated by the CCA 1974 and whether the relationship between the parties is unfair within the meaning of section 140A of that Act;
• Ihenacho v Swift Advances PLC (CA) (2013): an appeal concerning whether a regulated agreement was properly executed within the meaning of section 61(1)(a) of the CCA 1974 and in particular whether it stated the amount of the credit. The appeal was fully argued before the Court of Appeal on 8^th February 2013; however the case settled after the hearing but before judgment was handed down;
• Heath v Southern Pacific Mortgage Ltd [2010] 2WLR 1081: the leading case on the meaning of multiple agreements within section 18(1) of the Consumer Credit Act 1974;
• Carey v HSBC Bank plc [2009] EWHC 3417 (QB): the leading case concerning the requirements and effect of sections 77 and 78 of the CCA 1974;
• Watson v Progressive Financial Services Ltd [2009] CCLR 10: a case concerning whether section 142 CCA 1974 applies to closed agreements – decision subsequently overruled by London Scottish Finance Limited (In Adminstration), Re Jack v Craig  (above);
• Hurstanger v Wilson [2007] 1 WLR 2351: the leading case on undisclosed commissions in the context of finance brokers;
• Griffiths v Progressive Financial Services Limited t/a Welcome Financial Services [2007] C.T.L.C. 37: HHJ Pelling QC (Sitting as a Judge of the High Court) held that a mortgage indemnity fee was not insurance and therefore was correctly treated as a charge for credit within the meaning of regulation 4 of the Consumer Credit (Total Charge for Credit) Regulations 1980. 

• “Extremely approachable and knowledgeable in the field of consumer credit.” Legal 200, 2020 (Consumer)
• “Bradley is extremely approachable and his knowledge of consumer credit is exceptional.” Chambers & Partners 2016
• “The quality of his work is A1. He is very helpful, good with clients, and clear and forceful in his arguments on consumer credit.” Chambers & Partners 2014

Co-author of ‘The Law of Consumer Credit and Hire’, Oxford University Press

• Called Inner Temple 1993
• LLB, Newcastle University

My Privacy Notice may be viewed here: Privacy Notice