A consumer who has spent the past 18 years fighting a legal battle over a laptop has failed to win £600,000 from the bank which allegedly ruined his credit rating.
Richard Durkin, 46, appealed to the Court of Session saying he needed the cash to pay the £300,000 legal bill he incurred fighting HSBC bank in the UK Supreme Court.
He would have used the remaining cash to pay for a new family home in Aberdeen.
The offshore worker had gone to Britain’s highest court after spending years fighting his case in Scottish legal forums.
The legal battle was sparked after he bought a computer from the Aberdeen branch of PC World in 1998. He paid a £50 deposit and signed a £1,499 credit agreement with HFC – which later became a part of HSBC – for the remainder.
Mr Durkin, also of Aberdeen, claimed he was told he could get a refund if he had a problem with the machine but when he complained that it did not have an inbuilt modem, a manager said he couldn’t have his money back.
The retail chain eventually changed their mind. However, the bank kept on insisting Mr Durkin make payments.
This sparked years of legal action which initially saw judges at the Inner House of Court of Session rule against him.
In 2014, judges at the UK Supreme Court ruled in Mr Durkin’s favour and awarded him £8,000.
However, Mr Durkin was unhappy at this and returned to the Court of Session earlier this year after losing an initial bid to win the £600,000 at Aberdeen Sheriff Court.
On Thursday, appeal judges Lady Paton, Lord Drummond Young and Lord Malcolm ruled that Mr Durkin’s latest action had to fail.
The judges ruled that the matters brought to the court in the latest claim had already been decided two years ago in the Supreme Court.
In a written judgement issued by the court on Thursday, Lord Malcolm wrote: “It is likely that Mr Durkin will find it difficult to reconcile himself to this decision; but if he reflects on how he would react had he enjoyed complete success in the Supreme Court and then faced a new action seeking restoration of the decision of the Inner House, he might understand the rationale of our law.”
The father of two decided to embark on the legal action because HFC issued a default notice to credit agencies about his financial activities.
He claims this prevented him from taking advantage of zero per cent interest credit cards and stopped him from buying a new family home in Malaga.
In 2008 Aberdeen Sheriff Court ruled that he was entitled to reject the laptop and cancel the sale and the credit agreement. A sheriff there also awarded him £116,000 damages.
The decision was overturned later by judges sitting in the Inner House of the Court of Session after Mr Durkin himself appealed against the size of the damages.
However, judges at the UK Supreme Court then ruled in favour of Mr Durkin and awarded him £8,000. Mr Durkin then raised a new action at Aberdeen Sheriff Court for £600,000.
A sheriff there rejected his claim saying that the court couldn’t rule on it as the matters had already been decided by the Supreme Court. Mr Durkin appealed to the Sheriff Principal in Aberdeen who upheld his colleague’s decision. Mr Durkin then went to the Court of Session.
The judges there have also upheld the Aberdeen Sheriff Court decision.
In the ruling, Lord Malcolm said Mr Durkin was “extremely dissatisfied” with the £8,000 damages.
He added that there was nothing that the court could do. Lord Malcolm added: “For these reasons the appeal is refused.”
