header-logo header-logo

11 December 2009 / Andrew Head
Issue: 7397 / Categories: Opinion , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Watch this space

The Supreme Court decision of 25 November on bank charges in Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and others is on the face of it surprising.

The Supreme Court decision of 25 November on bank charges in Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National plc and others is on the face of it surprising. It appears to run counter to political and consumer trends.

It is also striking that the Supreme Court reversed not only the first instance judgement but the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal. There has been a predictable howl of anguish from consumer groups. But is the Supreme Court the villain of the piece or should we point the finger elsewhere? And how does the decision leave the thousands of claimants whose cases have been stayed pending the outcome?

The Supreme Court judgment was the end of a process which started in 2007 with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) investigating the fairness of terms relating to overdraft charges. The OFT also commenced a study into

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Should a conviction stand when a later ruling reveals that the law underpinning it was wrong? The answer exposes a clash between finality and justice
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
back-to-top-scroll