Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

At least they agree that it was not a landmark decision (unreported case).

Pity, that the case hadn't been about an early Egg credit card agreement, as opposed to Ms. Slater's. Still I suppose every dog has its day...

Never been impressed with Eversheds; understatement!

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

useful summary is that. I hate Eversheds.

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Report from Eversheds on EGG - News article - Eversheds LLP

rather confrontational lol.

Conclusion
Whilst the case is perhaps less of a landmark decision than others that we have seen over the 12 months, it is reassuring to see that Judges continue to reject tenuous challenges to the enforceability of credit agreements. The case also enforces the need for Claimants to put forward a positive case when making allegations of unenforceability and demonstrates that those who do not, will have their claims rejected.

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Quite happy for Brandon to be buried with the insane judgment on penalty charges on credit cards within it. Dont forget it is still under appeal.

And yes, all unreported cases have to be shown to clarify the law where it isnt reported in previous cases.

[Shepherdess]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Interesting. Presumably the same principles would apply to Amex vs Brandon / Duffy ?
Not only are they unreported, they seem to have been buried... apart from selected snippets of benefit to Mishcon. I believe the only full version available is the leaked one from the same blurry fax.

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Yip that was 1998, can;t see anything after that.

(I was looking, sorry have added to my previous post whilst trying to work it out)

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

[quote]
'Leave to cite unreported cases will not usually be granted unless counsel are able to reassure the court that the transcript in question contains a relevant statement of legal principle not found in reported authority and that the authority is not cited because of the phraseology used or as an illustration of the application of an established principle.'

http://www.francisbennion.com/pdfs/f...rted-cases.pdf

[Amethyst]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

2007 - same

15.6 Transcripts of unreported judgments should only be cited when they contain an authoritative statement of a relevant principle of law not to be found in a reported case or when they are necessary for the understanding of some other authority.

2001 - 7.1 Courts will in future pay particular attention, when it is sought to cite other categories of judgment, to any indication given by the court delivering the judgment that it was seen by that court as only applying decided law to the facts of the particular case; or otherwise as not extending or adding to the existing law.

What did Francis Bennion say then?

(I think the quoted bit makes perfect sense - if theres a reported judgment which everyone has access to that says the same thing as the unreported case, then you should rely on the reported case, but just cause a case is unreported doesnt mean it can't be used, just that it should be checked that the unreported judgment is the most authorative case)


---- ok found some old bits re unreported cases and Bennion's opinion

Unreported cases have equal authority with reported cases, and therefore should be equally accepted in citation.

The attempt to restrain citation of unreported cases is not merely unconstitutional, it is in modern conditions
pointless and unnecessary. More and more cases are being looked up by electronic means rather than in books. If
a computer search is carried out it makes little practical difference whether a judgment thrown up on the screen is
unreported or is also included in some bound volume.

Can't see anything he said in 2008 though ?

anyway current jobby blue book is http://www.publications.parliament.u...ebook/blue.pdf

[WelshMam2009]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Unreported judgments sometimes become authorities, however they must be used with caution. In the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords), if counsel wish to cite an unreported judgment, they must seek prior leave which will only be granted upon the assurance that it contains an authorative statement of a relevant principle of law not to be found in a reported case (House of Lords Practice Directions and Standing Orders. Jan 1992)

This is the bit that Francis Bennion objected to. Nothing to do with CCA, just the general principle. I think these practice directions may have been updated since 1992 but I believe that this clause remains the same as FB's objection was dated 2008.

Thanks for your input AC...very helpful.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

For the avoidance of doubt and although not in relation to Ms. Slater's case.
Many early Egg agreements, were standard agreements; agreements that were serviced by post.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

Obviously, the hanging judge, MC!

However. [quote]:
Should you be relying on an unreported case when it was not deemed important enough to be reported?[quote]

[Quote]:
Unreported judgments sometimes become authorities, however they must be used with caution. In the Supreme Court (previously House of Lords), if counsel wish to cite an unreported judgment, they must seek prior leave which will only be granted upon the assurance that it contains an authorative statement of a relevant principle of law not to be found in a reported case (House of Lords Practice Directions and Standing Orders. Jan 1992)[Quote]

[militantconsumer]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

And Yes, agree that the egg agreement documenation was in loose leaf form. Furthermore, I know for a fact that mistakes were made when same were assembled; we now know that these could have been caused by human/clerical error(s).

If what you say about the packs arriving unstapled is true then I can see how this might have happened at certain times.

Just as there's an old trick where you send a letter by special delivery but leave the contents (or part of the them) out!

Obviously if Alexandra Slater happens to work in the "don't pay you debts back" industry then she has a personal interest in remembering that the terms weren't enclosed.

On the other hand, how can a judge 100% believe what a paid Egg employee is saying, especially one who didn't even work for the company at the time?

As other posters have said, this was not the main point of the case, which was about the terms "approved limit", "individual limit", etc., and whether they constituted the prescribed term "credit limit". The judge decided they do, so the agreements are enforceable.

[Angry Cat]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

The one thing I would like clarification on is the status of the judgement as being "unreported." This did surprise me some what as I was of the impression that this case was going to set precedents in respect of Egg agreements.

I know Francis Bennion was of the view that Counsel should be able to use whatever case law they wished and was pushing for unreported cases to be given the same status as reported judgements.

Can someone explain the difference?

Naturally Egg will wish to introduce this case in any proceedings and I was just wondering what authority it has as an "unreported" judgement and if there is indeed any way to object to it's inclusion in any skeleton argument?

Also, all of my Egg agreement documentation is loose leaf so, in my humble opinion, on the balance of probability, I would be inclined to say that it is perfectly feasible that some may go missing or not be included. It's not like a bound document where everything is held together.

Hi, Welshmam!

"Unreported cases

Only about 2% of cases heard before all the courts each year are formally reported. Cases are selected for reporting if they satisfy any of these criteria:

• introducing a new principle or rule of law
• materially modifing an existing principle of law
• settling a doubtful question of law
• interpreting statutes
• illustrating new applications of important principles.

It used to be difficult to find information about cases which were unreported. However, online databases and the Internet have now widened access to such unreported judgments. Some of these resources may be organised like formal law reports while others may publish mere transcripts, containing the facts, legal arguments and judgments of the case but missing the headnotes and catchwords usually found in law reports.
Top tip: Should you be relying on an unreported case when it was not deemed important enough to be reported?"

And Yes, agree that the egg agreement documenation was in loose leaf form. Furthermore, I know for a fact that mistakes were made when same were assembled; we now know that these could have been caused by human/clerical error(s).

[WelshMam2009]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

The one thing I would like clarification on is the status of the judgement as being "unreported." This did surprise me some what as I was of the impression that this case was going to set precedents in respect of Egg agreements.

I know Francis Bennion was of the view that Counsel should be able to use whatever case law they wished and was pushing for unreported cases to be given the same status as reported judgements.

Can someone explain the difference?

Naturally Egg will wish to introduce this case in any proceedings and I was just wondering what authority it has as an "unreported" judgement and if there is indeed any way to object to it's inclusion in any skeleton argument?

Also, all of my Egg agreement documentation is loose leaf so, in my humble opinion, on the balance of probability, I would be inclined to say that it is perfectly feasible that some may go missing or not be included. It's not like a bound document where everything is held together.

[New_Age_Biker]

Re: Alexandra Slater v Egg Banking Plc August 9th 2010

From memory

The lady representing Egg was current product manager (I can't remember her name). She was not in that post at the time Miss Slater received her Egg card. She testified that the card would have been sent out with a pack of documents. The sample pack presented to the court were obtainned by the previous person in post. She testified that when she took over as product manager her predessor showed her a folder on a shared drive on the Egg server that containned sample packs as they were sent out. She further testified that the sample pack was created from an original pack of approximately the same time.

In my opinion her testimony could have been probed further which may have cast doubt as to the authenticity of her evidence, there was a reasonable degree of time difference between Slaters card and the sample pack IMHO