Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Discuss the latest legal developments, ask questions, and share best practice with other LexisPSL subscribers
I am interested to know commercial lawyers' reactions to the Supreme Court's decision in Robertson v Swift  UKSC 50. It centred on the Cancellation of Contracts made in a Consumer's Home, or Place of Work etc Regulations 2008 (the 2008 regulations), which in turn implemented Council Directive (85/577/EEC). It may have wider implications than its mundane facts would tend to suggest.
I question whether this was a case deserving of the Supreme Court’s time and whether the court’s reasoning stacks up.
By the time the decision was handed down, the 2008 regulations had been replaced with the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 (the 2013 regulations).
The decision is unlikely to radically change consumers' rights in practice. There should be little work for the 2008 regulations to do now that the 2013 regulations are in force. The Supreme Court may have decided a moot point. This may explain why the court was satisfied with two 'feasible' interpretations and preferred one over the other without stopping to decide on the right one.
On the other hand, the judgment may be an important addition for understanding and evaluating how courts approach statutory interpretation, particularly domestic laws which implement European directives. There is also the interplay between decisions of the Supreme Court and decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union to be considered.
As a hypothetical exercise, if we were to markup paragraphs 7 and 8 of the 2008 regulations as they were interpreted by the Supreme Court, they would look like this:
‘7. Right to cancel a contract to which these Regulations apply
(1) A consumer has the right to cancel a contract to which these Regulations apply within at any time prior to the expiration of the cancellation period...
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
0330 161 1234