Update on my post above
I had not prepared the case bundle because Abbey wrote to me in early August telling me that they would be writing to the court (Croydon) and asking for a stay, and that my case was therefore likely to be postponed.
Looking back on it I think they were quite arrogant to assume that the request for a stay would be granted, but that's about what I'd expect.
Anyway - it was confirmed when I got there that they had not written asking for a stay. Instead they had a barrister there to ask in person.
The judge gave me an extremely courteous and helpful overview of all the pros and cons surrounding such cases and requests for a stay, and explained that, all things considered, he thought it appropriate to agree to Abbey's request.
He was not impressed with Abbey's conduct in the matter (saying they'd be writing to ask for a stay and then not doing so, and then turning up with nobody from Abbey prepared to put the Abbey case in the event that he (the judge) refused a stay. Although I didn't ask, he awarded £50 witness costs (the most he can award, I think). He did this to show that he did not approve of Abbey's conduct, I believe.
So - a stay is granted until after the OFT case. And he said that the loser in that case is certain to appeal and so a final decison is unlikely within 12 months.
Interestingly, he said that Abbey's template defence in which in para 6 (or 8??) they agree that there has been a breach of contract, does NOT mean that in law there has been a breach of contract. I am not sure how Abbey's statement that there has been a breach can mean anything other than what it says - but he was quite clear that it did not allow me to assume that there had been a breach. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than I am can explain.
