header-logo header-logo

Banking on competition

07 January 2010 / Veronica Bailey
Issue: 7399 / Categories: Features , LexisPSL
printer mail-detail

Is competition law the way forward for consumers? asks Veronica Bailey

The banks may have rejoiced at the Supreme Court decision in The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc & others [2009] EWCA Civ 116, [2009] All ER (D) 270 (Feb) that the OFT does not have power under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations 1999 (SI 2009/2083) (UTCCR) to assess the fairness of the banks charging terms, but this is unlikely to be the final chapter of this saga.

The banks’ appeal to the Supreme Court was confined to the narrow issue of deciding whether the OFT had power under the UTCCR to investigate whether the system of charging personal current account holders was fair. The unauthorised overdraft charges were part of the “price or remuneration” for the services and as such fell within the exemption of reg 6(2)(b) and could not be challenged by the OFT for fairness, the Supreme Court held.

In what has been described as a “reverse Robin Hood” approach, unauthorised overdraft or insufficient funds charges

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Pillsbury—Steven James

Pillsbury—Steven James

Firm boosts London IP capability with high-profile technology sector hire

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Clarke Willmott—Michelle Seddon

Private client specialist joins as partner in Taunton office

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

DWF—Rory White-Andrews

Finance and restructuring offering strengthened by partner hire in London

NEWS
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB) continues to stir controversy across civil litigation, according to NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School—AKA ‘The insider’
SRA v Goodwin is a rare disciplinary decision where a solicitor found to have acted dishonestly avoided being struck off, says Clare Hughes-Williams of DAC Beachcroft in this week's NLJ. The Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal (SDT) imposed a 12-month suspension instead, citing medical evidence and the absence of harm to clients
In their latest Family Law Brief for NLJ, Ellie Hampson-Jones and Carla Ditz of Stewarts review three key family law rulings, including the latest instalment in the long-running saga of Potanin v Potanina
The Asian International Arbitration Centre’s sweeping reforms through its AIAC Suite of Rules 2026, unveiled at Asia ADR Week, are under examination in this week's NLJ by John (Ching Jack) Choi of Gresham Legal
In this week's issue of NLJ, Yasseen Gailani and Alexander Martin of Quinn Emanuel report on the High Court’s decision in Skatteforvaltningen (SKAT) v Solo Capital Partners LLP & Ors [2025], where Denmark’s tax authority failed to recover £1.4bn in disputed dividend tax refunds
back-to-top-scroll