Sawar v RBS

[EXC]

Interesting appeal judgment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2233.html

Here are the highlights:

(6) In the course of the trial Blackburne J asked Leading Counsel for the Bank about the interest rate that was applied to the overdraft on the Customer's account with the Bank. The question was at least in part prompted by a question as to the Bank's entitlement to charge default interest at a rate of 25% per annum. The question did not arise distinctly on the pleadings or statements of case, but it was apparent enough for Blackburne J to ask about it.

(7) The question was not answered immediately, and the topic continued to feature as the trial continued, just as it had in materials and documents before the trial and in preparation for the trial.

(8) However having made enquiries of the Bank, and having been provided with certain documents by the Bank, towards the end of the trial Leading Counsel for the Bank informed Blackburne J that an interest rate of 25% had not been charged by the Bank, and that the rate charged on default had instead never been more than base rate plus 4%. On the basis of this information Leading Counsel went on to characterise default interest as "a complete red herring".

(9) In fact it is now clear that the Bank had been charging 25% interest, and specifically in the period 30 September 1994 to 30 September 1995. The information given at trial to Blaekbume J, and to the Customer, by the Bank through its Leading Counsel was false.

[CleverClogs]

Re: Sawar v RBS

Interesting appeal judgment.

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2011/2233.html

A more telling highlight is this:

23.

In these circumstances the appeal must be allowed. I view that result with satisfaction. Many might ask why the Bank's response to realising that it had provided incorrect information to Blackburne J and to the (its) Customer would not be to seek to put that right. It is obvious that had the Bank provided correct information Blackburne J would have ensured there was a means by which its entitlement to charge interest at that rate could be examined. Putting right what the Bank had done wrong would involve the Bank's supporting a course that would allow examination of its entitlement to charge interest at 25%, rather than seeking to take advantage its own error by arguing that the matter was closed.

I dare say that not a few might conclude (and with what degree of fairness I really cannot say) that the sole or main reason the Bank pleaded res judicata and estoppel could be that the Bank are a wunch of swindling bankers.