BBC website - lawyer trying to force banks to reveal costs

Twinkly

UNDERGROUND wrote: »

See you're at it again!!!!

UNDERGROUND

Aaaarrrgghh!!!

Git :rotfl:

Nathan_Spleen

Tozer wrote: »

Yes it is. If an offer is made for (above!) the claim amount then the CPR requires parties to settle. He is acting unreasonably in proceeding. Courts are not for making "principle" stands and as a lawyer he should know better.

Don't get excited about the precedent being set either. It is only County Court and there is no judicial precedence at this level.

Given the number of issues in this case, the detail of evidence, and the importance of the case, it is likely to moved onto the multi-track, so it may well be listed in the High Court. In any event, a ruling on the lawfulness of the charges by a judge is binding until it is over-turned. This case will probably go to appeal, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords eventually ruled on it.

And who on earth is spouting this un-Tozerish rubbish? Step forward one Tom Brennan - Barrister

MarkyMarkD

Well, I also believed Tozer's comment that there is no judicial precedence at County Court. Is Tom Brennan making it up, or does he know something which nobody else does?

When I heard him interviewed, all he said was that it would (in some way) be binding on NatWest alone.

digp

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Well, I also believed Tozer's comment that there is no judicial precedence at County Court. Is Tom Brennan making it up, or does he know something which nobody else does?

When I heard him interviewed, all he said was that it would (in some way) be binding on NatWest alone.

Precisely. However, given the significance of the case it might well be that the judge hands down a written judgment which if the law reports (e.g. lawtel) pick it up would mean ammunition in the hands of litigants. It may not be binding but another judge at the same level might consider it to be persuasive!!

MarkyMarkD

Or, another judge might think the original judge's view was wrong. I am not at all convinced that one judge will necessarily be persuaded by another's view, particularly where the topic is extremely debatable.

Nathan_Spleen

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Or, another judge might think the original judge's view was wrong. I am not at all convinced that one judge will necessarily be persuaded by another's view, particularly where the topic is extremely debatable.

If the topic was was debatable banks would debate it. It is'nt, so they do'nt

Tozer

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Or, another judge might think the original judge's view was wrong. I am not at all convinced that one judge will necessarily be persuaded by another's view, particularly where the topic is extremely debatable.

Very much doubt it will be listed in the High Court.

No precedence whatsoever if at County Court level. Very unlikely to be reported either.

Tozer

MarkyMarkD wrote: »

Well, I also believed Tozer's comment that there is no judicial precedence at County Court. Is Tom Brennan making it up, or does he know something which nobody else does?

When I heard him interviewed, all he said was that it would (in some way) be binding on NatWest alone.

Put it this way, if the bank loses, they are not going to feel too chuffed about it so may well change their policies.

Tozer

Nathan_Spleen wrote: »

Given the number of issues in this case, the detail of evidence, and the importance of the case, it is likely to moved onto the multi-track, so it may well be listed in the High Court. In any event, a ruling on the lawfulness of the charges by a judge is binding until it is over-turned. This case will probably go to appeal, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords eventually ruled on it.

And who on earth is spouting this un-Tozerish rubbish? Step forward one Tom Brennan - Barrister

Things can only go to appeal if leave is granted.

Oh - tell you a funny thing - there are no barristers in the UK called Tom Brennan. Odd eh?

oldwiring

Setting aside the debate on the bindingness of whatever court the case goes to decsion, I do wonder how a determination besed on one bank's costs can be appled to all banks. They all have different cost structures, unless of course the court takes an naive view of costs and does not facor in an allwance for all the overheads of running any business and merely limits itself to the paer ink and stamp costs. I do not think our judges are that stupid.