Potter has the potential to impact on all types of credit claims, not just PPI, when the case lands in the Court of Appeal in January 2021 – but what does it mean for law firms handling Plevin litigation now?

The case of Canada Square Operations Limited v Beverley Potter [2020] brought a degree of clarity to the issue of limitation points in Plevin Litigation. This was welcomed by law firms, claims management companies and claimants alike as it strengthened the claimants’ argument that these claims should not have a limitation period applied to them due to the deliberate concealment of PPI commission levels. This meant that the claims need not be confined to a six-year limitation period [1].

An Appeal on Potter was brought by Canada Square and for the second time and again the judge found in the claimants’ favour (judgement was handed down in March 2020 [2]). Great news for Plevin litigation. While the Appeal in January 2021 could change this position, the fact that two judges have decided in Potter’s favour should reassure claimants.

What can we be sure of?

If Canada Square succeeds at the Court of Appeal in January, the six-year limitation period will strip out a significant number of the Plevin litigation market for law firms and claims companies.

If Potter wins, law firms and claims management companies will continue to be able to support claimants via Plevin through litigation – even if the end of the credit agreement is beyond the six-year limitation period. This enables access to justice for thousands more individuals with an ‘unfair relationship’ claim with their lender.

Either way this is likely to run and run as the loser (irrespective of which side it is) is likely to take this to the Supreme Court (if permitted).

What should claimant law firms do?

Talk to us to stay updated with the latest market insight on Plevin litigation and other unfair relationship opportunities.

SpectraLegal Finance has been funding Plevin cases for over 18 months. This provides us with unrivalled market intelligence which we are able to share with law firms running Plevin through litigation.

We also work closely with the Alliance of Claims Companies, through our Plevin Panel (APP) – established exclusively to support ACC members and to share litigation insight from those handling a high volume of successful Plevin cases.

We’ll keep you posted for an update on Potter and other cases as they come to light and how they could impact on your clients’ claims – and your business.

If you’d like to discuss funding your unfair relationship cases with us – or are looking to expand your book of work in this field, please contact Matthew Gwynne today. Find out more by visiting our Plevin Litigation Funding page.


[1] In Potter v Canada Square, the Lender [Canada Square Operations Ltd, formerly Egg Banking plc] accepted that the non-disclosure of commission caused unfairness in the relationship; however, it defended the claim on the basis that it was issued outside the widely accepted six-year limitation period.

Mrs Potter’s legal team invoked Section 32 of the Limitation Act 1980, which extends the limitation period due to the deliberate concealment of commission levels by the lender.

[2] Canada Square Operations Limited v Beverley Potter [2020] EWHC 672 (QB)