Important new development

[ICY]

Please everyone read THIS, a judge has ordered Barclays to suspend making charges until end of test case, looks like its just for the one case at the moment, but hopefully there is a chance that judges across hhe country will make similar orders

[ukaviator]

The story is here:

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge calls halt to bank charges

[Trojan1401]

Icy,

 

Link here !

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Judge calls halt to bank charges

[ICY]

Ooops sorry guys, i forgot to add link

[bandonbhoy]

everyone should send copy of this judge cecision to their bank

[jansus]

Icy

 

wanted to ask you a question- on reading the OFT full statement it seems that they are taking banks to High Court - but there is also an agreement about how it is going to be done ( so not really the same thing is it:rolleyes: )

 

but in section C it infers that they though they had better bring the case as if another case had reached the High court before this Test case the courts would not have been equipped or had the full information to deal with it - I will post the statement in a second.

 

 

C. The Banks and the OFT believe that, consistently with CPR Part 1 (the

overriding objective), the relevant legal issues need to be determined

expeditiously and, in light of the complexity and importance of the issues, in a

fair and orderly way. The scale of the customer litigation causes increased

expense for all litigants as well as the Courts and presents significant

administrative problems for the Courts in handling such cases. Further, the

risk exists that the issues currently being investigated by the OFT will be

brought before the High Court (and/or the Court of Appeal) before the OFT is

in a position to adopt a considered position on the fairness of such terms, and

in circumstances where the Court will not have all the relevant materials

available to it to determine all relevant issues.

If I was a high court judge I would be annoyed at this statement as if the banks had used their many millions to defend a case surely the courts would have been in possesion of all the relevant facts and would have been able to deal with this many months ago. Surely it is the banks fault for not presenting a full case - not the courts for not making a decision.

Just a comment as I wondered if thats why some of the courts are going ahead with cases - I wonder if they feel that they are being pressured to stay the cases in the system by the OFT - and in fact it is the banks that should be under pressure for clogging up the system in the first place when they could have defended a long time ago ( we all know why they havent:) )

 

 

 

jan

[tezl]

Icy

 

wanted to ask you a question- on reading the OFT full statement it seems that they are taking banks to High Court - but there is also an agreement about how it is going to be done ( so not really the same thing is it:rolleyes: )

 

but in section C it infers that they though they had better bring the case as if another case had reached the High court before this Test case the courts would not have been equipped or had the full information to deal with it - I will post the statement in a second.

 

 

C. The Banks and the OFT believe that, consistently with CPR Part 1 (the

overriding objective), the relevant legal issues need to be determined

expeditiously and, in light of the complexity and importance of the issues, in a

fair and orderly way. The scale of the customer litigation causes increased

expense for all litigants as well as the Courts and presents significant

administrative problems for the Courts in handling such cases. Further, the

risk exists that the issues currently being investigated by the OFT will be

brought before the High Court (and/or the Court of Appeal) before the OFT is

in a position to adopt a considered position on the fairness of such terms, and

in circumstances where the Court will not have all the relevant materials

available to it to determine all relevant issues.

 

 

 

If I was a high court judge I would be annoyed at this statement as if the banks had used their many millions to defend a case surely the courts would have been in possesion of all the relevant facts and would have been able to deal with this many months ago. Surely it is the banks fault for not presenting a full case - not the courts for not making a decision.

 

Just a comment as I wondered if thats why some of the courts are going ahead with cases - I wonder if they feel that they are being pressured to stay the cases in the system by the OFT - and in fact it is the banks that should be under pressure for clogging up the system in the first place when they could have defended a long time ago ( we all know why they havent:) )

 

 

 

jan

hi, i have been saying this, think its same thoughts as you,i want to see a proper court case with blood on the floor,not a so called agreement by a old pals act.tez.