Tweet
Barrister fights Natwest charges
A legal attempt to force the NatWest bank to justify its overdraft charges has ended after three days, with the judge now considering his decision.
Newly-qualified barrister Tom Brennan had asked the court for permission to sue the NatWest for damages, over what he claims are its unfair bank charges.
Victory for Mr Brennan would force a bank, for the first time, to justify its level of overdraft fees in court.
The NatWest's lawyer said Mr Brennan's legal arguments were "bizarre".
Third day
The hearing at the City of London County Court has ended with Judge Peter Simpson reserving his judgement.
Mr Brennan alleges that the bank imposed the overdraft charges knowing they were unjustifiably high, and that in doing so it caused him economic harm by damaging his credit rating.
Mr Brennan has already had his overdraft charges of £2,548 repaid to him, and the bank has also offered him a further £1,600 to settle his claim, without an admission of any liability on its side.
But at the end of the third day, Ben Pilling, the barrister for the NatWest, argued that Brennan's case should be thrown out.
"He is asserting his continuing loss by refusing the money he is claiming," said Mr Pilling.
"It is an artificial way to say 'my claim has not been satisfied'," he added.
Test case
Mr Brennan is seeking to create a test case by claiming the right to sue, not on the direct grounds that his overdraft charges were too high, but for exemplary and aggravated damages to punish the bank's behaviour, and also for damaging his financial standing.
But Mr Pilling accused Mr Brennan of pursuing his case even though he had nothing more to gain.
"There is no practical remedy for Mr Brennan to claim, as he has already been paid more than he can legitimately claim," said Mr Pilling.
"It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion - that is exactly what his claim is all about.
"He is pursuing this action for the benefit of other people, not himself - he is pursuing a crusade," he added.
Addressing Mr Brennan's arguments directly, Mr Pilling said they were unsustainable in law.
"There is no sustainable claim for causing loss or for breach of duty - the only sustainable claim is for breach of contract - thus no exemplary or aggravated damages are applicable," said the NatWest's barrister.
"The interests of the consumer will not be damaged if the case is struck out.
"The Office of Fair Trading has that role and its enquiry is underway to examine the issue Mr Brennan is vexed about," he concluded.
A legal attempt to force the NatWest bank to justify its overdraft charges has ended after three days, with the judge now considering his decision.
Newly-qualified barrister Tom Brennan had asked the court for permission to sue the NatWest for damages, over what he claims are its unfair bank charges.
Victory for Mr Brennan would force a bank, for the first time, to justify its level of overdraft fees in court.
The NatWest's lawyer said Mr Brennan's legal arguments were "bizarre".
Third day
The hearing at the City of London County Court has ended with Judge Peter Simpson reserving his judgement.
Mr Brennan alleges that the bank imposed the overdraft charges knowing they were unjustifiably high, and that in doing so it caused him economic harm by damaging his credit rating.
Mr Brennan has already had his overdraft charges of £2,548 repaid to him, and the bank has also offered him a further £1,600 to settle his claim, without an admission of any liability on its side.
But at the end of the third day, Ben Pilling, the barrister for the NatWest, argued that Brennan's case should be thrown out.
"He is asserting his continuing loss by refusing the money he is claiming," said Mr Pilling.
"It is an artificial way to say 'my claim has not been satisfied'," he added.
Test case
Mr Brennan is seeking to create a test case by claiming the right to sue, not on the direct grounds that his overdraft charges were too high, but for exemplary and aggravated damages to punish the bank's behaviour, and also for damaging his financial standing.
But Mr Pilling accused Mr Brennan of pursuing his case even though he had nothing more to gain.
"There is no practical remedy for Mr Brennan to claim, as he has already been paid more than he can legitimately claim," said Mr Pilling.
"It is not for Mr Brennan to set himself up as a consumer champion - that is exactly what his claim is all about.
"He is pursuing this action for the benefit of other people, not himself - he is pursuing a crusade," he added.
Addressing Mr Brennan's arguments directly, Mr Pilling said they were unsustainable in law.
"There is no sustainable claim for causing loss or for breach of duty - the only sustainable claim is for breach of contract - thus no exemplary or aggravated damages are applicable," said the NatWest's barrister.
"The interests of the consumer will not be damaged if the case is struck out.
"The Office of Fair Trading has that role and its enquiry is underway to examine the issue Mr Brennan is vexed about," he concluded.
Comment