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
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
