court ordered claim cancelled

[gbd]

Just to add, that it is very encouraging to see that the judge has actually given liberty to apply to set aside the stay. This does indicate very strongly that it really is on his own initiative and that he is not following orders from on high.

I would recommend that the stay be challenged. There are lots of good arguments

 

 

The judge has no option but to give liberty for either side to apply for his order to be set aside. Under the CPR, any order made by the court without representations from the parties can apply to be set asside.

 

On the wider issue I beleive this is a red herring. If my memory serves me correctly (I've just tried to do some research on the Internet but didn't get very far) Legal Precedent can only be set by the Court of Appeal and the High Court. So while the higher courts may make rulings which the lower courts can consider, they are not binding as legal precedent until the Appeal Court or the House of Lords have agreed them (possibly the Royal Courts of Justice / High Court as well).

[gbd]

Just answered my own question - this is from the Darlington Council website (Legal Sources)

 

Precedent can only be set by the High Court and above.

 

On the HMCS website, it lists the seperate courts which make up the High Court as:

 

Commercial Court

Admiralty Court

Administrative Court

Chancery Division

Court of Appeal Civil Division

Family Division

Patents Court

Queen's Bench Division

Supreme Court Costs Office

Technology & Construction Court

Companies Court

Bankruptcy Court

Principal Registry of the Family Division

Royal Courts of Justice

 

The only listings I can find for Mercantile Courts are in connection with County Courts. So I don't think they are part of the High Court.

 

Is there a friendly lawyer on here who can clarify?

[lee6370]

It would also seem (correct me if i'm wrong) that no other claims can be stayed until this claim has been accepted by the mercantile court.

[elsinore]

gbd, I think a Mercantile Court is a Commercial Court by another name.

 

"As with the Commercial Court, Mercantile Courts function as specialist lists within the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court"

 

Above is taken from here http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/docs/mercguide_liv-man.pdf

 

Elsinore

[lee6370]

Are we sure that the possible test case is going to be heard at a mercantile court?

 

I can't see any reason, why such a case would result in other cases being stayed or that the outcome of such a case would have any bearing on other claims.

 

Can someone correct me.

[lookinforinfo]

Jifjaf has been presented with a real conundrum. Does he argue against the set

aside or accept it? Before he can make a reasoned judgement, he really needs to

get more information from the Court.

 

When is the case? how long will it last? Could there be interminable appeals? What

is the case about? who is bringing it? why is it being held in that Court? How will

the decision affect my case? What if I want my hearing in August anyway, could

the decision in the higher Court later affect my result? If I want to set aside,

can the bank stall and stall until the other case is heard?

 

And once you get answers to those questions, it mat be that a whole raft of other

questions will arise.

 

You do need to find out as much as you can from the Court. At least one bank must know what is happening, and possibly all of them now know, in which case

it is equitable that you are furnished with the relevant details prior to making

your decision.

 

The actual wording of some the stay by the Court is quite vague and there is a

possibility that if it is a large claim against a bank, they still might decide not to

contest it. On the other hand this could be where the banks take a stand and

fight their corner. Hopefully the person they are up against is well equipped to

handle it. Though if the banks are taking a stand, it probably means they have

chosen their victim carefully.

 

Good liuck with your decision.

[Seminole]

Jifjaf has been presented with a real conundrum. Does he argue against the set

aside or accept it? Before he can make a reasoned judgement, he really needs to

get more information from the Court.

 

When is the case? how long will it last? Could there be interminable appeals? What

is the case about? who is bringing it? why is it being held in that Court? How will

the decision affect my case? What if I want my hearing in August anyway, could

the decision in the higher Court later affect my result? If I want to set aside,

can the bank stall and stall until the other case is heard?

 

And once you get answers to those questions, it mat be that a whole raft of other

questions will arise.

 

You do need to find out as much as you can from the Court. At least one bank must know what is happening, and possibly all of them now know, in which case

it is equitable that you are furnished with the relevant details prior to making

your decision.

 

The actual wording of some the stay by the Court is quite vague and there is a

possibility that if it is a large claim against a bank, they still might decide not to

contest it. On the other hand this could be where the banks take a stand and

fight their corner. Hopefully the person they are up against is well equipped to

handle it. Though if the banks are taking a stand, it probably means they have

chosen their victim carefully.

 

Good liuck with your decision.

 

Bear in mind that such a case would be brought at the behest of a bank or several banks. They've had plenty of opportunities to defend claims over the past few months but have declined to do so. It's very unlikely, in my view, that such a case would be a genuine claim by a member of the public. I would be surprised if the banks are going to allow a point of law to be tested in such a way that it exposes them to serious risk, and they would certainly be seeking to avoid disclosure.

 

I suspect that the best we can hope for is that it is some sort of consumer group that is bringing this case (has anyone asked Which?).

[gbd]

It is also worth pointing out that precendents only affect "points of law".

 

In the case of bank charges, there is no point of law which has been offered by any bank in any of its defences. Therefore the two previous precedents (set by higher courts) about genuine costs stand.

[lee6370]

As far as the banks go your right, unless they are certain of winning they won't allow a case to go ahead, if things are bad now to lose such a case would be unthinkable.

 

In the scheme of things the amount of claims going ahead are a drop in the ocean, there are how many million's of banks accounts? at the moment there are a few thousand cases, even if it's as much as 5'000, thats nothing compared to what losing a case like this could bring.

 

The banks are more worried about the cost of going to court, then not going to court.

 

I don;t know who is bringing the case, but i bet it's not being pushed forward by the banks.

[elsinore]

jifjaf, I don't know how you're doing with this nutty problem, but I don't envy you!

 

I agree with lookingforinfo in that, if it was my problem, I think I would be approaching the Clerk to Gloucester Court to ask if he/she can expand on the judge's decision. Can any light be thrown on the 'test case' that has given rise to the stay? Have other similar claims (if any?) been stayed in the same way? It is just conceivable that this is the first case of its kind to land on that particular judge's bench and he/she has decided to deal with it in that way. I would also want to know what my chances of success would be in applying for the stay to be lifted. What is the time limit for applying for a stay to be lifted? I'm sure there would be other questions that I would want answering before making a decision as to which way to proceed.

 

Clerks of Court and their staff are very knowledgeable and helpful and I think you have nothing to lose by talking to them.

 

Elsinore

[pauli]

This issue is causing a lot of speculation. It is perhaps best to wait until the more hard facts emerge.

 

As I said in my original post the judges comments were an aside. It is quite clear she had no knowledge of why there had been a sudden upsurge in cases as I had to explain the OFT's April ruling. District judges have wide general experience but their knowledge of particular areas of the law is patchy and in some cases non existent. My case was struck off without getting into the legality of charges argument. Although she had clearly read my defence document. I got the impression that she would not have decided on the merits or otherwise of the legal argument but allocated it for another hearing. It seemed that she and her colleagues were mightily relieved that it might be taken out of their hands.

 

For some reason I imagined this might be an action the judiciary had instigated themselves. Is this possible? Can they ask for a higher court to rule on a point of law without there being an actual case?

 

I do not want to muddy the waters further. It seems to me to be a decision we each need to make for ourselves, at least for now, in submitting fresh claims.

[johnspeehs]

he has also posted this on the bankchargeshell forum but oddly enough no one has replied to the posting.

[gordonhall]

We may as well just relax over the weekend, watch England get beat, and just chill.

 

Come next week, we should either see a number of cases put aside or just sail through as normal.

 

Time is a wonderful thing... wish I'd invented it!

[spartagates]

We may as well just relax over the weekend, watch England get beat, and just chill.

 

Come next week, we should either see a number of cases put aside or just sail through as normal.

 

Time is a wonderful thing... wish I'd invented it!

 

Could not agree more. If it was going to be a blanket "ban" I think we would have started to hear more. I have a claim pending and nothing to report as yet....

[gordonhall]

OK, I admit it, I'm baffled. Just how do you get that quote box that is in steel grey.

 

I've tried and failed...

[gordonhall]

OK, I admit it, I'm baffled. Just how do you get that quote box that is in steel grey.

 

I've tried and failed...

 

 

 

I've answered my own question!! isn't the Internet wonderful!

[blueskies]

I think this, if it's true, is going to be more negative than positive. We will, hopefully, get a judgement in our favour, but this will probably take a long time. The problem is I don't think that many people on here will have the patience and give up and the banks will win again.

 

Another problem is that the banks will pick their victim carefully on their situation, probably including a poor account history with no good reason and hoping to find a judge that will take that into account.

 

A case lost could be catastrophic, not necessarily because we could all lose but it will put off a large amount of people that we have only just convinced to make claims.

[Guest stephen]

Hi has any body really seen the court order! or know the claim number,

[mechs]

hey you never know - they might rule that the banks pay everyone every charge they've ever taken from them......

 

i hope they've already allocated someone to be the test case guinea pig.... cause its not something I'd fancy !(me being a tame litigant...)

 

Snap

[mechs]

Well if its any help guys this is from my case

 

Just an update from the court the Halifax have filed acknowledgement of service on 28/6/06 and intend to defend the whole of the claim whats new there:grin: :grin: :grin:

 

Will obviously keep you all posted if there are any further developements

[skyrocket123]

This is all very worrying. I am supposed to be filing today on MCOL.

Has anyone else had their case put on stay?

[Seminole]

This is all very worrying. I am supposed to be filing today on MCOL.

Has anyone else had their case put on stay?

 

Absolutely none that I have heard of. For the time being this seems to be an isolated incident and there is no reason to delay submission of other claims.

[pj41]

I might be a bit simple here but MCOL and all county courts require a fee.

 

If there is some knowledge of a test case awaited in a higher court at some time and we may get an answer eventually, surely it's a bit unfair to allow a claim to be made and a fee paid to be told "thanks very much but your claim isn't going anywhere for the time being". Bit of a rip off don't you think.

 

If they are still accepting claims for unlawful charges then continue as normal I would say.

 

 

Cheers

 

 

Paul

[RiaMac]

Hi

 

Would this test cast have any bearing on claims being lodged in Scottish courts? I am waiting to hear from Abbey re my claim for charges (they have until next Wednesday, 12th). If they offer me substantially less than I have requested should I take it but tell them I still expect the full amount, take it and run or just say no thanks? All this speculation is warping my brain but if this issue does not affect Scottish courts then I might be worrying over nothing (yet).

[Rooster-UK]

I would venture to suggest that, as we have no confirmation of the current situation, then it should be business as usual until we hear otherwise.

 

It's a pity we can't get actual claim details from JifJaf.