Foxtons cancel appeal of UTCCR ruling off back of Bank Charges Judgment

[ROBSTER]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Judgment tomorrow.

Before LORD JUSTICE WALLER Vice President of the Court of Appeal, Civil Division
LADY JUSTICE ARDEN and
LORD JUSTICE MOORE-BICK
Not Before 10:15
FOR JUDGMENT
APPEAL
From The Chancery Division
FINAL DECISIONS
A3/2008/1939 The Office of Fair Trading -v- Foxtons Limited. Appeal of Claimant from the order of Mr Justice Morgan, dated 17th July 2008, filed 7th August 2008.

ANY NEWS EXC?

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Nope. Been keeping an eye on the judicial site but it's not been posted up yet. If you'd like to take over share judgment watch duty it's all yours!

http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/judgment...ents/index.htm

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

The Office of Fair Trading: OFT welcomes Court of Appeal Judgment in Foxtons case on Unfair terms

Is that this one?

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Well done Nattie.

Excellent result!

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Good news, hopefully they will post up the full judgment on the judiciary site at some point which should clear some bits up.

Main point from the OFT article - read across to charges is quite obvious.

During the preliminary stages of these proceedings the OFT appealed against a ruling by Mr Justice Morgan which accepted arguments from Foxtons that any injunction on unfair terms could only apply to future contracts, rather than preventing the use or enforcement of unfair terms in existing ones.




Today, the Court of Appeal overturned this ruling, confirming the OFT's long-held view that it can take enforcement action under the UTCCRs to protect consumers in relation to both existing and future contracts. The Court of Appeal stated that the UTCCRs aim to protect consumers, and were of the view that traders should not have the freedom to pursue existing customers without restriction, in correspondence or by litigation, in order to enforce contractual terms that have been found to be unfair.


The fairness of the terms in any Foxtons' contract themselves have not yet been considered and this will form the substantive case listed in the High Court during the week commencing 27 April.

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Well done Nattie.

Excellent result!

I was ermmm tipped off by ermm someone else :o

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Good news, hopefully they will post up the full judgment on the judiciary site at some point which should clear some bits up.

Main point from the OFT article - read across to charges is quite obvious.

Yes and it does beg the question of how 'current' is defined. The terms at the point the UTCCR investigation began? Or when the litigation agreement was signed? Or the terms considered in the initial hearing? Or the terms at the point any judgment was given?

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Should come up in the full judgment text.

with ref to the test case on charges....

When we have talked before about the OFT powers being non retrospective, it now through this seems they can enforce on existing contracts, which will be any contract signed prior to the beginning of the test case so they can now enforce retrospectively can't they ? They can't chase debt built up from unfair terms in existing contracts (so all bank account charges(ok jumping gun and saying they will be deemed unfair) - so although it may not mean they can order repayment, they can stop the banks from enforcement of those charges ?

Or am I being over excitable lol.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

it now through this seems they can enforce on existing contracts, which will be any contract signed prior to the beginning of the test case .

If that was the case it would encompass all contracts going back hundreds of years though wouldn't it?

But as you say the Foxtons judgment might shed some light on it. I've asked Tom what implications the ruling might have on the test case.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

If that was the case it would encompass all contracts going back hundreds of years though wouldn't it?

Well those still in existence

[natweststaffmember]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Well those still in existence

I am sure they could be reconstructed if need be

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Ame I hope I'm wrong but think you are getting a bit over excited here. I suggest chewing on a bit of straw liberally laced with an industrial grade large mammal tranquiliser.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Ame I hope I'm wrong but think you are getting a bit over excited here. I suggest chewing on a bit of straw liberally laced with an industrial grade large mammal tranquiliser.

pmsl sounds like a plan....I'll stick to me FROA oi less of the mammal (well okay I am a mammal but not a particularly large one)

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Ooops didn't mean it like that. Where's the naughty step again Tools?

[Tools]

Re: OFT v Foxtons

Underneath my backside as usual.