OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Does the legal aid not cover the costs of losing as well as the claimants sols fees?

You asked this before - it doesn't. There is a link to Scottish legal aid procedure on this thread somewhere.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

So the legal aid is just to pay Govan ? Thought they would have done it FOC.

I would imagine that he is asking for legal aid to establish a precedent for other cases.

I doubt if he was able to secure ATE insurance either. If Hausfelds were unable to get it's doubtful if GLC would.

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I forgot lol. Seems a bit daft tbh. Legal Aid is to pay Govan. So it is as you said, the case is being ditched because the Legal Aid Board won't pay Govan the £375 ? Just seemed a bit over simplified. The case will cost a lot more than that to bring, so its good that Govan would do it for £375,(but free would be better obviously but sure theres some technical reason) but the costs risk if they lost in OC are pretty mindblowing, and if theres no insurance to cover it (not sure how that works in Scotland but I presume same basis as LAB and only insure cases with a reasonable chance of winning).

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

I would imagine that he is asking for legal aid to establish a precedent for other cases.

I doubt if he was able to secure ATE insurance either. If Hausfelds were unable to get it's doubtful if GLC would.

Agree. Hausfields had Scriveners opinion, Govan has Ray Cox's. I'd have put my eggs in Hausfields basket over Govans tbh, if they couldnt get it through I don't see that Govan will, but the Scots legal system is slightly different.

Just waiting for the shouts of conspiracy and the LAB are being paid off by the banks now.

People really should come to terms with the fact historical bank charge claims are at an end and use all this energy looking to the future and ensuring this kind of crap doesn't happen again.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Just waiting for the shouts of conspiracy and the LAB are being paid off by the banks now.

Sadly that's already happening Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[Amethyst]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

pmsl, didn't take long.

[leclerc]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

OK, I got FOC= Free of Charge

But what is LAB? and can you explain ATE insurance(for others not my good self)?
GLC= Govan Law Centre
ECJ= European Courts of Justice.

Apologies but some of us still aren't sure of all the jargon, lol!

[ncf355]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Hi,

ATE = After The Event insurance, this insures you against the other sides legal costs

The insurer will normally only grant the policy following an assessment by a solicitor/barrister as to your chances of success in a case

It would obviously be quite a brave insurer that would give ATE in a bank charges case and even then I would imagine the ATE premium would be quite large

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

But what is LAB?

Legal Aid Board Scottish Legal Aid Board Online

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

Posted on CAG by Mike Dailly.


I'm not sure how being able to ask the court if they could modify expenses can be described as an ''insurance policy'' though.



Dear Caggers

Just to explain the reason we sought a civil legal aid certificate in the case of Sharp v. BOS (and we have other legal aid applications and other bank charge cases before the courts too) is not for Govan Law Centre to be paid a fee (we have always undertaken our bank charges work for free in the UK public interest) but rather because these cases have been remitted to the ordinary court (at the instance of the banks, where there is no protection against expenses) and therefore it would have been professionally irresponsible for me to run a case and expose my client to an award of expenses if we were to lose.

As you may know the banks have employed advocates (barristers) instructed by solicitors to act on their behalf in these cases, and if the Sharp case ended up with a QC and junior counsel, and Dundas + Wilson LLP instructing them, you could be looking at many tens of thousands of pounds if we lost. I don't think we will lose, we have good prospects, but as a solicitor I cannot expose a client to that level of risk.

A legal aid certificate in Scotland provides an insurance policy against costs in the event of contra expenses or failure - section 18 of the Legal Aid (Scotland) Act 1986 entitles a legally aided client to ask the court to modify expenses to nil. That is why legal aid is so important in any contentious case, where the opponent has very deep pockets.

I can assure you that the new bank charges arguments will be argued before the courts by GLC, and the reason why we are making such a fuss here, is for tactical reasons.

Mike

Govan Law Centre

Sheriff puts Bank of Scotland to proof on bank charges

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

The Scottish Legal Aid Board have issued a statement regarding GLC's application for legal aid which they are reconsidering in the light of further information supplied in support of it.

But they are clearly unhappy with the lack of information contained in the initial application and subsequent review, and also the negative publicity given to the Scottish Legal Aid Board on GLC's site.

http://www.slab.org.uk/news/document...tlandFINAL.pdf

[ncf355]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

"No mention was made of wider public interest by Govan Law Centre at this time"

So the learned members of the board couldnt work out this for themselves?

[ncf355]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

"The Board entirely rejects entirely Mr Dailly’s assertions and are confident of the Board’s role in monitoring and safeguarding access to justice in Scotland"

Entirely!

[leclerc]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

"No mention was made of wider public interest by Govan Law Centre at this time"

So the learned members of the board couldnt work out this for themselves?

Wider public interest: Define that?

I was on MSE yesterday and to be honest on the bank charges reclaims boards, it is very very quiet. Look at other sites and you'll see that it is very very quiet(including here). Bank Charges litigation today is not a matter of wider public interest. No one is winning through the courts and haven't done for a while. Whilst it may be in OUR wider interest, it isn't necessarily the same definition that you may be expecting.

[EXC]

Re: OFT v Banks Judgment 25th November 2009 - 9.45am- Supreme Court - Test case

"No mention was made of wider public interest by Govan Law Centre at this time"

So the learned members of the board couldnt work out this for themselves?

They're not meant to 'work it out for themselves' - that's the job of the applicant. They're a legal aid board responsible for allocating public money.