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

Flint Bishop—Charlotte Harris

Flint Bishop—Charlotte Harris

Sheffield expansion continues with appointment of commercial property partner

Browne Jacobson—Paul Duggan

Browne Jacobson—Paul Duggan

Browne Jacobson strengthens banking and finance practice with latest partner appointment Paul Duggan

Ward Hadaway—Chris Piggott

Ward Hadaway—Chris Piggott

Employment partner joins Ward Hadaway

NEWS
The Law Society RFC Festival of Sport returns next month, bringing together legal and financial services professionals for one of the sector’s largest annual sporting events
Legal aid deserts leave almost one in four without adequate access to justice
The Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) has warned solicitors and law firms that using artificial intelligence does not alter their professional obligations, amid concerns over inaccurate legal material and client confidentiality
From forgotten interest claims to case-management appeals, a string of procedural developments offers useful—and occasionally cautionary—lessons for practitioners

Jonathan Fisher KC highlights that it now accounts for around 40% of criminal offences, with roughly 70% involving technology, and argues that the UK cannot simply prosecute its way out of the problem. Detection, investigation and prosecution all require improvement, while different fraud types demand tailored responses.

back-to-top-scroll