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

[Amethyst]

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

FIGHT !

[EXC]

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

A further statement from the Scottish Legal Aid Board.

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

[leclerc]

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

Mike, doesn't seem to want to keep them on board and his scathing attack on them appears on the reading to be completely unjustified in view of their more detailed statement. It does appear to also state that public utterances might not necessarily be the right approach when you have had an application declined.
They are not very happy with him at all.

[EXC]

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

Mike, doesn't seem to want to keep them on board and his scathing attack on them appears on the reading to be completely unjustified in view of their more detailed statement. It does appear to also state that public utterances might not necessarily be the right approach when you have had an application declined.
They are not very happy with him at all.

I agree.

In my view he has demonstrated bad judgment and a lack of integrity that one wouldn't normally expect of a legal professional.

[EXC]

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

Another day, another GLC statement.

Govan Law Centre: Confidence must be restored in Scotland's legal aid system

Govan Law Centre: Scotland's Justice Secretary must back Scottish Consumers over unfair bank charges says MSP

[Amethyst]

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

Accordingly, as matters stand Scotland’s legal aid and civil court system have failed Scottish consumers who want to try and reclaim their overdraft charges.

Lets not forget this is not a done deal, sec 140 of the CCA has under 20% chance of succeeding and the UTCCR 5.1 under 50% chance. Maybe Mike should show the SLAB Ray Cox's opinion.

SO cost / benefit analysis just doesn't work out for a claim under £3k, in ordinary cause where costs can be tens of thousands (where it must be because of the complexity of the case - don't forget small claims is meant for simple 'they owe me and havent paid' type claims not JUST value limited) vs an under 50% chance of winning.

If SLAB roll over based on this adverse publiclity because they are worried about their future existence due to calls, also by Mike Dailly,''Call to scrap Scottish Legal Aid Board to save £40m'', then yep I'd probably end up agreeing with him. Seems that is another press release issued without having actually submitted proposals.

This kind of thing is damaging to vulnerable consumers, much in the way that the CCA cases which resulted in a massive loss of ease of use and application of the protections available under the CCA were.

[ncf355]

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

Hmm

Hope this actually ends up going somewhere rather than just ruffling feathers and p'ing off the wrong people!

[EXC]

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

Lets not forget this is not a done deal, sec 140 of the CCA has under 20% chance of succeeding and the UTCCR 5.1 under 50% chance. Maybe Mike should show the SLAB Ray Cox's opinion.

Indeed.

If his own Counsel's opinion doesn't give it even a 50 - 50 chance it's difficult to reconcile that with his own prediction that ''I don't think we will lose, we have good prospects''.

[Amethyst]

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

This the form ? http://www.slab.org.uk/profession/eF...Non_Family.pdf

[Amethyst]

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

Guidance

Section M – statutory statement memorandum
You can use Section M to give us the statutory statement we send to the opponent to notify them that an application for civil legal aid has been lodged. You do not have to use this section if you prefer to submit a separate document. If you do not use Section M please
ensure that any statutory statement you send us sets out the nature of the case and the
interest of the applicant in the case, and that both you and the applicant sign it.

[Amethyst]

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

http://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/opinions/2005CSOH69.html = probable sucess main case law

http://www.slab.org.uk/profession/ha...ook/index.html - handbook on legal aid

I still can't find anything about costs if you lose (other than saying Reid/Sharp has to pay them as SLAB can't and they can ask the court to reduce the costs award a bit cause they are on legal aid - nout about insurance ????)

[EXC]

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

nout about insurance ????)

I don't think there is any provision for insurance as such.

When Mike mentioned the legal aid providing an 'insurance policy' against adverse costs, I think he meant it as a figure of speech. But as you say legal aid only provides right to ask the court to consider reducing it.

Although in the first SLAB statement it did mention that he was to apply for a protective costs order so maybe that is the vehicle for the request.

[Amethyst]

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

Aren't protective costs orders only for bringing cases against public bodies ? (I havent read a lot on them but they have to be in the public interest which is already being argued )

[EXC]

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

Aren't protective costs orders only for bringing cases against public bodies ?

That's what I thought but as you say it might cover all public interest cases, but the SLAB statement doesn't seem to rule out the possibility of it being applied for:

''The solicitor’s letter provides new information, including the question of seeking a protective costs order.''

[righty]

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

Also the response from the the Scottish board is nonsense or they must all live under a rock if they have to be TOLD the case is of great public interest hence their revisit of the application