Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

An excellent summary.

I would imagine that should an appeal to the HoLs succeed, the HoLs would referr it to the ECJ.

[shooter]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

This may be a stupid question but

What happens if te banks surprise us all and DON'T apply for leave to appeal?
What would then happen and what would be the time scale?

I'm sorry if this has already been asked but I can't see it anywhere.
As we all have seen the banks do seem to drag their heals and leave thing to the last possible second.
Could they be doing that again and keeping everyone hanging on tender hooks without having any intention of going to the HOL?

Shooter

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

The same as if application to appeal is turned down by HoL as mentioned by Stoney in post #330

1. The House denies the application; in this case, *the OFT now has an unassailable legal authority to decide on the fairness of bank charges and matters will proceed to them making a declaration that the charges are unfair. The Banks will likely appeal this declaration in the Courts.

[enaid]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

OK so if it goes to the ECJ and here is an explanation.

The ECJ is the highest court of the European Union in matters of Community law, but not national law. It is not possible to appeal the decisions of national courts to the ECJ, but rather national courts refer questions of EU law to the ECJ. However, it is ultimately for the national court to apply to resulting interpretation to the facts of any given case. This allows even the lowest of courts to refer question of EU law for a decision, although only courts of final appeal are bound to refer a question of EU law when one is raised before it. The treaties charge the ECJ with ensuring the consistent application of EU law across the EU as a whole, in an attempt to avoid different national courts interpreting and applying in different way.

What will they be able to do that our courts can't ?

Maybe they will find in our favour for once and decide that our charges should be more in line with the rest of Europe.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I don't know Nelly. During both the original hearing and the appeal the banks' did dispute the interpretation of UTCCR from the EU directives that it wad based on so it may be that there could be a role for ECJ.

I just checked with the HoLs and the banks still haven't lodged an appeal application but they do expect them to. By my calculations it has to be filed by 10 am tomorrow.

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I just checked with the HoLs and the banks still haven't lodged an appeal application but they do expect them to. By my calculations it has to be filed by 10 am tomorrow.

Why 10 am?

If it is maybe they will put us out of our suspense and get them in by close of business today ?

[righty]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Tom surely any appeal has to be based on the existing arguments put forward at trial. Any new argument/evidence would only be considered if it had NOT been available to the banks at the outset which I think would a bit of a mountain to climb considering the number of QC's in their corner

[ROBSTER]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Why 10 am?

If it is maybe they will put us out of our suspense and get them in by close of business today ?

I just checked with the HoLs and the banks still haven't lodged an appeal application but they do expect them to. By my calculations it has to be filed by 10 am tomorrow.

Any updates EXC ?

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Robster, 10am is the time the Judgment was handed down on the 26th February, I think EXC was calculating exactly 28 days from then, no other reason or inside info.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

It's actually a calander month rather than 28 days and as Tools said that would start and end at 10 am - the time the judgment was handed down.

I don't think any new arguments can be introduced in the appeal application or any appeal hearing. I believe that an appeal is essentially a review of a previous judgment and not a re-trial as such.

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

In that case I agree that there should be a complaint made against the banks regarding the original litigation agreement. If no new submissions will be made what reason other than delaying proceedings "un-expeditiously" can there be. I suppose they will use the usual crap that they had to "consult their legal teams as to the viability of appealing" but we all know its bull****.

They know their days of unfair charges are numbered and we have seen that they have systems in place as far back as last year to refund people, they are holding onto the money for as long as possible purely for profit.

Meanwhile, thousands of people in need of their money that was unfairly taken suffer, okay they are identifying and making interim payments to claimants in severe financial hardship but what about everyone else who just misses the FSA's criteria?

It's cat and mouse but at the expense of the people in need. Surely someone somewhere realises that when the charges are refunded to customers much of that money will be used to clear accumulated debts and therefore go back into the system. Any surplus will either be banked (recreating the deposits the banks desperately need) or spent on goods and services giving a much needed boost to industry and the economy. The money wont suddenly be stuffed under peoples mattress' never to be used again, it will be recycled into the system.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

In that case I agree that there should be a complaint made against the banks regarding the original litigation agreement. If no new submissions will be made what reason other than delaying proceedings "un-expeditiously" can there be..

The banks would have had to detail their grounds for appeal when they applied and failed for leave to appeal when the appeal judgment was handed down.

As far as I can see they have broken the terms of both the litigation agreement and the waiver direction.

The waiver direction states:

(7) if the firm is a party to the test case, then it must cooperate with the FSA, the OFT and other parties to the test case and use reasonable endeavours to ensure that resolution of the test case is achieved expeditiously;

And the litigation agreement states:

Subject to (b) below, the Banks in question will seek to have any such appeal, whether to the Court of Appeal or beyond (including a reference to the European Courts of Justice, if any), heard on an expedited basis, and undertake to take all reasonable steps to ensure that the said appeal is conducted and determined on an expedited basis as soon as is reasonably practible.

Leaving it to the 30th day of 30 days in no way conforms with the definition of ''expedite'': 'To hasten the progress of': 'To do quickly'.

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

Thanks Nick I had forgotten it was part of the waiver too.

[EXC]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

I'm probably not going to have the opportunity to call them today but perhaps someone could call the HoLs Judicial Office after 10am - 020 7219 3111 - and ask if they've received an appeal application for Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National & Others.

[Tools]

Re: Appeal Judgment - 26th February 2009 - OFT v Abbey National Plc & Otrs

If I get the chance while out today I will telephone them Nick.