Edgelow v MacElwee
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 1918 |
| Date | 1918 |
| Court | King's Bench Division |
Money-lender - Solicitor lending Money -
A person who, while bona fide carrying on the business of a solicitor, makes a practice of advancing money to clients and others is required to be registered under the Money-lenders Act, 1900, unless his primary object in lending the money is to maintain or increase his professional business and earn professional fees.
TRIAL of action before McCardie J. without a jury.
The action was brought to recover a sum of 80l. due on a cheque given for money lent. The defence was that the plaintiff, who was a solicitor, carried on the business of a money-lender and was not registered under the Money-lenders Act, 1900. The facts and contentions sufficiently appear from the judgment.
Stuart Bevan, for the plaintiff.
Arthur Powell, K.C., and H. W. Wickham, for the defendant.
Nov. 29. MCCARDIE J. read the following judgment:– This action raises points of general interest under the Money-lenders Act, 1900. The plaintiff claims upon a cheque for 80l. given by the defendant for moneys lent by the plaintiff. The defendant repudiates liability on the ground that the plaintiff is an unregistered money-lender. The facts are unusual. The question at issue is important. The defendant contends that the plaintiff combined the business of an unregistered money-lender with the practice of his profession as a solicitor and that the latter vocation has cloaked an illegal trade.
Before I consider the circumstances it is desirable to state the legal principles which govern the case. The Money-lenders Act, 1900, precludes an unregistered money-lender from enforcing any contract made in the course of his money-lending business: see Bonnard v. DottF1; In re Robinson's Settlement.F2 Sect. 6 of the Act defines a money-lender as follows: “The expression ‘money-lender’ in this Act shall include every person whose business is that of money-lending, or who advertises or announces himself or holds himself out in any way as carrying on that business.” A man does not become a money-lender by reason of occasional loans to relations, friends, or acquaintances, whether interest be charged or not. Charity and kindliness are not the bases of usury. Nor does a man become a money-lender merely because he may upon one or several isolated occasions lend money to a stranger. There must be more than occasional and disconnected loans. There must be a business of money-lending, and the word “business” imports the notion of system, repetition, and continuity: see Newton v. PykeF3, per Walton J.; Fagot v. FineF4, per Bankes and Lush JJ.; and Newman v. OughtonF5, per Ridley and Avory JJ. The line of demarcation cannot be defined with closeness or indicated by any specific formula. Each case must depend on its own peculiar...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Larut Matang Supermarket Sdn Bhd v Liew Fook Yung
-
Premor Ltd v Shaw Brothers (A Firm)
...have been before the Courts upon this subject. I would just like to associate myself with what Mr Justice McCardie said in the case of Edgelow v. MacElwee, 1918, 1 King's Bench, p. 207. He said: "The Act of 1900 was a severe but beneficial measure. Its object must always be remembered. On t......
-
Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd v Sheagar s/o T M Veloo
...v Chng Eng Chye [2013] 2 SLR 715 (folld) Chow Wun Sing Winston v Yiu Chun Luk CACV 295/2006 (6 March 2008) (folld) Edgelow v Mac Elwee [1918] 1 KB 205 (folld) Federal Lands Commissioner v Benfort Enterprise [1997] 3 SLR (R) 895; [1998] 1 SLR 855 (folld) Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470 (fo......
- Jayal Singh v Leong Yung Kwok