House of Lords

Published June 24, 2009

TRM Copy Centres Ltd v Lanwall Services Ltd

Before Lord Hoffmann, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Rodger of Earlsferry, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe and Baroness Hale of Richmond

Speeches June 17, 2009

The essence of hire was that the hirer acquired the use and possession of goods from the provider in return for a rent, whether payable in cash or kind.

An agreement between the provider of photocopiers and the retailers in whose premises the photocopiers were located was not a consumer hire agreement within the meaning of section 15 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 if no rent was payable by the retailer to the provider for the hire of the photocopiers, and nothing was to be paid to the provider unless the photocopiers were used by the retailers or their customers.

The House of Lords so held, dismissing an appeal by the defendant, Lanwall Services Ltd, from the dismissal by the Court of Appeal (Sir Mark Potter, President, Lord Justice Thomas and Lord Justice Hooper) (\ Bus LR 1231) of its appeal from Mr Justice Flaux (\ EWHC 1738 (QB)) who ruled on a preliminary issue that location agreements entered into by the claimants, TRM Copy Centres (UK) Ltd, Digital 4 Convenience plc and D4C Finance Ltd, with several retailers were not consumer hire agreements for the purposes of the 1974 Act.

Section 15 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 provides: “(1) A consumer hire agreement is an agreement made by a person with an individual (the ‘hirer’) for the bailment or (in Scotland) the hiring of goods to the hirer...”

Mr Jonathan Ferris for Lanwall; Ms Bridget Williamson for the claimants.

LORD HOPE said that the defendant supplied photocopiers to leasing companies which leased them in return for a rental payment to, among others, the operators of retail businesses in shops and sub-post offices. It then serviced and maintained the photocopiers under a maintenance agreement with the retailers.

The claimants carried on business in competition with the defendants. They too dealt in photocopiers but they did so in a way that differed from the business model used by the defendant. They leased the photocopiers from a finance company. They then installed them in shops and sub-post offices under an agreement, which was described as a location agreement, with the retailer.

Times Recommends

• BGC 'set aside £40m to lure Tullett brokers'
• Legal aid review to ensure value
• Fears as 21 magistrates' courts face closure