Jarrett v Barclays Bank plc and Royal Bank of Scotland plc
Jones v First National Bank plc  and 
First National Bank plc v Peacock
Queen's Bench Divisional Court 31 October 1996

These appeals arose from separate cases which were decided at County Court hearings in favour of the creditor (in the Jarrett and Jones cases) and in favour of the debtor (in the Peacock case). The issue was whether the fact that these transactions were timeshare contracts meant that they were tenancy agreements and thus compelled by the Brussels Convention to be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the country in whose area the land was situated and consequently, whether this overrode the provisions of Section 75 and prevented a debtor from making the finance company jointly liable for breach of contract by the timeshare provider.

It was argued by the banks that Section 75(1) conferred on the debtor the right to pursue a "like" claim against the creditor as he has against the supplier. They submitted therefore that, because the claim against the supplier could only be brought in Spain or Portugal, so claims against the creditors could only brought there.

Lord Justice Morritt did not accept these submissions - the reference to a "like" claim in Section 75 must refer to the like cause of action. Plainly the remedies could not be the same - remedies against the supplier could include injunctions or orders for specific performance, which could not lie against the creditor. Further, these actions do not have as their object tenancies of immovable property. In each case the foundation for the claim against the bank under Section 75 is the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement. That contract has attached to it the personal statutory rights conferred by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 on the debtor. While the enforcement of those statutory rights is connected with the claims of the consumer against the supplier under the timeshare agreements, it is based on the debtor-creditor-supplier agreement not the timeshare agreement.

Accordingly, the appeals of the Jones and the Jarretts should be allowed and that of First National Bank in the action brought by the Peacocks should be dismissed.