Tweet
Unfortunately there is no significant news to report at this stage.
Mr Crow, on behalf of the OFT, indicated that the investigation has not reached any conclusions at this stage. They expect to reach a provisional view - and communicate that provisional view to the banks - at the end of July. At this stage, Mr Crow could not state what the content of those provisional findings would be, nor the extent of those findings. As a result, we do not know if those findings can be provided to the judge in this case, due to the fact that there may be commercially sensitive information within those findings.
Mr Crow did suggest, however, that those findings could be redacted, if necessary, and thereby allow them to be provided to the judge. Smith J. was keen to ensure that this information be made as public as possible, for obvious reasons.
Although the judge has yet to give directions, it appears that the OFT will be reporting to the judge by way of letter on 24th and 25th July as to the position at that time. The biggest concern for the judge was that the OFT and the banks would reach some form of agreement as to a fair level and/or structure of charging and would therefore discontinue the current litigation. This would cause significant problems for the issue of historic terms as they affect thousands of cases currently on hold in the county courts. The judge was keen to stress that in his opinion, this test case was the best vehicle for determining the issues, rather than using test cases from a number of individual consumers. It appeared that both the OFT and the banks agreed with this.
In respect of the appeal, the Court of Appeal indicated it could hear the appeal in July, but the OFT indicated that it was not in a position to start the appeal hearings at that time (although the banks were prepared to have the hearing then). As a result, an appeal window of late October to mid-November is the most likely time for the UTCCR appeal to be heard. Since we do not yet have a ruling in respect of historic terms for either UTCCR application or penalty charges at common law, it is not clear whether those issues will be heard at the same time. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Court of Appeal will probably want to deal with all the issues simultaneously.
Tom Brennan
Mr Crow, on behalf of the OFT, indicated that the investigation has not reached any conclusions at this stage. They expect to reach a provisional view - and communicate that provisional view to the banks - at the end of July. At this stage, Mr Crow could not state what the content of those provisional findings would be, nor the extent of those findings. As a result, we do not know if those findings can be provided to the judge in this case, due to the fact that there may be commercially sensitive information within those findings.
Mr Crow did suggest, however, that those findings could be redacted, if necessary, and thereby allow them to be provided to the judge. Smith J. was keen to ensure that this information be made as public as possible, for obvious reasons.
Although the judge has yet to give directions, it appears that the OFT will be reporting to the judge by way of letter on 24th and 25th July as to the position at that time. The biggest concern for the judge was that the OFT and the banks would reach some form of agreement as to a fair level and/or structure of charging and would therefore discontinue the current litigation. This would cause significant problems for the issue of historic terms as they affect thousands of cases currently on hold in the county courts. The judge was keen to stress that in his opinion, this test case was the best vehicle for determining the issues, rather than using test cases from a number of individual consumers. It appeared that both the OFT and the banks agreed with this.
In respect of the appeal, the Court of Appeal indicated it could hear the appeal in July, but the OFT indicated that it was not in a position to start the appeal hearings at that time (although the banks were prepared to have the hearing then). As a result, an appeal window of late October to mid-November is the most likely time for the UTCCR appeal to be heard. Since we do not yet have a ruling in respect of historic terms for either UTCCR application or penalty charges at common law, it is not clear whether those issues will be heard at the same time. Having said that, I am of the opinion that the Court of Appeal will probably want to deal with all the issues simultaneously.
Tom Brennan
)
Comment