• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Transcripts from House of Lords test case appeal.

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Transcripts from House of Lords test case appeal.

    We now have available for Legal Beagles members the full transcripts from the 3 days of hearings at the House of Lords.

    They are quite heavy going, but very interesting and definately worth a read.

    The hearing in the House of Lords was held on 23rd, 24th, 25th June 2009 and the purpose is to appeal the Judgments handed down in the High Court by Justice Smith in April 2008 and in the Court of Appeal by the Master of the Rolls in February 2009.

    If I can ask that these aren't reproduced outside of the site please. Big thanks to EXC for getting them off Merrill Legal for us. Took a while to get the banks and OFT to agree to make them public.




    Some extracts -
    Originally posted by day 1
    MR SUMPTION: Indeed. In this case, you are paying for the
    6 convenience of being able to do that which you would not
    7 otherwise be entitled to insist on: namely, that
    8 transactions go through in spite of the absence of funds
    9 and that you be allowed to borrow.
    10 LORD MANCE: Actually, you are not, are you? You are really
    11 paying to enable banks to operate a sort of reverse
    12 Robin Hood exercise. Isn't it subsidising the richer --
    13 MR SUMPTION: That is, with respect, tendentious nonsense.
    14 LORD MANCE: Tell me why.
    15 MR SUMPTION: Looking at it in terms of the contractual
    16 relationship with which this regulation is concerned,
    17 what you are paying for is the right to do that. What
    18 your Lordship is referring to is what the bank does with
    19 its revenue stream.
    20 Now, that is not simply what your Lordship calls
    21 Robin Hood-ery. First of all, it is a cross-subsidy
    22 between those parts of the individual customer's charges
    23 which are generated at a time when he is in credit, and
    24 those when he is not.
    25 One should not look at this simply in terms that
    37
    1 there are two categories of people: people who are
    2 permanently in credit and people who are permanently in
    3 debit.
    4 But the fundamental objection to your Lordship's
    5 point is that it is confusing what the charge is levied
    6 before as between the customer and the bank and what the
    7 customer spends the money on. It would be just as
    8 pertinent -- ie, in my submission, not pertinent at
    9 all -- to say that we were charging these in order to
    10 pay increased dividends to our shareholders; now, of
    11 course, an indirect way of subsidising the public purse.
    12 LORD MANCE: There must in fact be a lot of cross-subsidy
    13 between people who remain in credit. I mean, the larger
    14 the amount you have in the bank, the more interest you
    15 will forgo and the more, therefore, you are subsidising
    16 someone who may remain perfectly in credit but only
    17 has £10 in the bank.
    18 MR SUMPTION: Cross-subsidy is inherent in almost any
    19 complex package of services. It is absolutely
    20 fundamental and it is not objectionable.
    Last edited by Amethyst; 16th August 2009, 09:38:AM.
    #staysafestayhome

    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

  • #2
    Re: Transcripts and overview from House of Lords test case appeal.

    June 23rd 2009
    Last edited by Amethyst; 23rd July 2009, 11:49:AM.
    #staysafestayhome

    Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

    Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Transcripts and overview from House of Lords test case appeal.

      June 24th 2009
      #staysafestayhome

      Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

      Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Transcripts and overview from House of Lords test case appeal.

        June 25th 2009
        #staysafestayhome

        Any support I provide is offered without liability, if you are unsure please seek professional legal guidance.

        Received a Court Claim? Read >>>>> First Steps

        Comment

        View our Terms and Conditions

        LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

        If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


        If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
        Working...
        X