header-logo header-logo

02 August 2007
Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Banking
printer mail-detail

Lawyer loses overdraft fees test case

News

A rookie barrister has lost his landmark legal battle to force NatWest bank to justify its fees and to cough up damages for taking £2,500 from his account in unauthorised overdraft charges.

NatWest had already offered Tom Brennan £3,000 but he was seeking aggravated damages at the City of London County Court for stress and exemplary damages for “deliberate, malicious or negligent” behaviour. However, in an 80-minute judgment, Judge Peter Simpson comprehensively rejected Brennan’s legal arguments.

“It is not for the claimant to set himself up as a champion of other customers,” he said. “He does not have any legal standing to litigate on behalf of other people.”

Judge Simpson refused Brennan leave to appeal, but outside the court the currently non-practising barrister said he would approach the High Court directly and ask it to hear his case.

The case comes a week after the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) announced it will push for a High Court declaration on whether the rules in the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (SI 1999/2083) apply to overdraft charges.

Brennan claims that even if the OFT manages to clarify this point, its case would not make clear the position for bank customers who ran up overdraft charges in the past.

Issue: 7284 / Categories: Legal News , Banking
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll