Tom Brennan v NatWest - This is a must-read!!!

[mrsfoot]

Todays case is not the full hearing and as HSBC said before it will be a few months before this happens. Todays hearing is to se if there is a case to hear and if so what Laws will be used. When Tom updates his site you will be able to read his court papers and see for yourself the laws he intends on relying on.

But dont just stop your claim and wait for this hearing to take place months into the future. Keep in trakc with your claim as it is likely to be successful anyway whether Toms case is heard or not.

[steveh6883]

subscribing

[meagain]

Just subscribing

 

Subing

 

subbing

 

subbing

 

subscribing

 

New rule: Anyone posting to any thread in the above manner is subject to summary burnination. The button you are looking for is at the top right of the first post on every page.

 

[crfx250]

I get the distinct impression that things are not going well for our Tom, according to the comments made by Judge Simpson, he seems to be taking the 'Cooke approach'.

 

At the risk of sounding negative, I'm preparing for the worst.

 

Lets hope he's got something up his sleeve for today.

 

COME ON TOM !!

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Charges case 'madness' says bank

[terry1]

i think the comments right at the end 'At one point, Judge Simpson also said he did not see "any basis" for a claim for aggravated damages as this part of the claim - effectively for stress or hurt feelings - was usually not relevant to disputes over commercial contracts.'

cant really be taken as a negetive or a possitive at this moment intime but have to wait and see, i think he has his work cut out against experienced barristers, and maby the banks have had a long time to put together a strond defence incase this was ever going to happen

[terry1]

that should of been a strong defence not a strond

[freesafety]

thanks Mrsfoot. Will carry on.

[photoman]

Meagain

 

Just wondering about "summary Burnination" ?

 

Not a word I've come across before....sounds painful.... does it involve burning ...perhaps at a stake, like they do to witches ?

 

I do agree that subbing to a thread in such a manner is an improper way to do so. It unnecessarily lengthens a thread, making it difficult to read.

It also triggers an email and user CP notification to everyone else that is already subscribed, so wasting their time and also site resources.

[justwon]

i think the comments right at the end 'At one point, Judge Simpson also said he did not see "any basis" for a claim for aggravated damages as this part of the claim - effectively for stress or hurt feelings - was usually not relevant to disputes over commercial contracts.'

cant really be taken as a negetive or a possitive at this moment intime but have to wait and see, i think he has his work cut out against experienced barristers, and maby the banks have had a long time to put together a strond defence incase this was ever going to happen

 

That comment surprised me when I read it. I remember reading that in Jarvis v Swan Tours Ltd [1973] that the Court of Appeal held that, in appropriate cases, damages for mental distress could be awarded in breach of contract cases. I have not read the case myself, but if what I read was true then it would appear to diminish the value of the judges comments.

 

I understand of course that there is no indication that the judge even suggested that an absolute bar to recovering damages for mental anguish and such like exists in law. However, the words quoted in the article provide no sound reasoning for his suggesting that the claim for aggravated damages had "no basis"; even if it is the case that aggravated damages for mental anguish are "usually not relevant to disputes over commercial contracts", it doesn't necessarily follow that such a claim has no legal basis. What's more such an assertion (whether true or not) isn't grounds for suggesting a claim to be ill-founded.

[justwon]

Here is a summary of the Jarvis case from Jarvis v Swan Tours

(fuller transcript from SWARB here: Jarvis -v- Swans Tours Ltd, Court of Appeal, 1972, lawindexpro)

 

Not as good as I thought, however it may be possible distinguish it from the present case.

 

Jarvis v Swan Tours [1973] 2 QB 233

Mr Jarvis, a lonely solicitor in Reading who took only two weeks' holiday per year, booked a winter sports holiday which Swan Tours advertised in their brochure as "a houseparty in Morlialp" with "a special resident host"... "a Welcome party... afternoon tea and cakes" and a "yodler evening". Ski packs would be available and the brochure concluded "You be in for a great time". The houseparty consisted of 13 people in the first week, and only Mr Jarvis in the second, when there was no representative at the hotel; there was no welcoming party; full-length ski were available on only two days; the cake for tea was only crisps and dry nutcake; the yodeller was a local who sang a few songs wearing his ordinary work clothes. Mr Jarvis claimed damages for breach of contract.

HELD that the statements in the brochure were contractual undertakings which had not been fulfilled, so that there was a breach of contract; Mr Jarvis was awarded 125 pounds, twice the cost of his holiday. Although in general in breach of contract no damages can be recovered for mental distress, where the purpose of the contract is to give pleasure or alleviate distress, damages may be awarded for the failure of the contract to achieve its purpose.

[zootscoot]

Jarvis v Swan tours was not an aggravated damages claim. It was a claim for disappointment and is available only where the purpose of the contract is to confer pleasure.

 

Aggravated damages are available in tort law not contract.

[Mistermind]

I gather the true purpose of the Brennan case is to force elusive defendants to face a court hearing and verdict on the lawfulness of specific bank charges.

 

If the Brennan case were unfortunate enough to go no further than today, well the Berwick case has accidentally provided the means to the same end, namely an appeal against the adverse verdict in the High Court, where the defendant cannot go AWOL.

[Shoestring]

I find the judges comments, as reported in the BBC website article to be of concern. The Judges comment about Brennan waiting for the OFT to complete its enquiry into bank charges, strongly indicates where the judge sits on this issue. At least to me. The OFT is not independent of the banks and other business sectors, but is there to protect them -- not the customer.

 

I hope to God my analysis is absolutely wrong, but I have always doubted that the powers that be would act honestly and will not allow the banks to be cut open for a feeding frenzy. £22 billion accrued in unlawful charges over the past decade is too much money to allow honest restitution. Payment of damages on top of that is just not going to be allowed.

 

Sorry for the gloomy view.

 

Shoestring

[crfx250]

Another update but no news. I'm getting well nervous. I also think the judges reference to the OFT was a bit odd. The OFT can't give a legal

ruling on the charges - only a judge can - and that's why Brennan's there

is'nt it?

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank charge case enters third day

[halibut]

The case is now over. Just waiting on the verdict now.

[paulson1985]

This is scary stuff.

 

Fingers crossed for Tom.

[jules1973]

Surely we cant have bad news two weeks running,

 

I wish they would hurry up and make a verdict, my nails have been bitten down enough already.

[paulson1985]

My thoughts exactly.

 

We will just have to be patient I suppose but oh the suspense.

[Mistermind]

The OFT global review of all types of bank charges was announced for completion around the end of 2007. On 5th April 2006 the OFT CEO announced that unless bank overdrawn charges (as well as card Overlimit charges) were reduced to £12, he "did not rule out taking legal action". He gave a deadline of 31st May 2006. Whereas I believe all cards fell into line with £12 over the next few months (except for Egg who wrangled £16 from OFT), banks laughed at OFT.

 

In his pronouncement on 5/4/2006 John Singleton explicitly said -- only a court can decide what level of charge is lawful. I believe it makes no sense for the judge to say today, look to the OFT, when the OFT already said, look to the courts.

[crfx250]

Bank charge case ends for verdict

 

''the judge is due to give his decision in due course''.

 

BBC NEWS | Business | Bank charge case ends for verdict

[bennyowen]

I think everyone listening and reading the news on this matter need to understand that the outcome of this case positive or negative to Mr Brennan will not stop people claiming back their unlawful charges.

 

If Mr Brennan loses, the ongoing claims of unlawful charges will continue as normal without hinderance whatsoever.

 

If Mr Brennan wins, the ongoing claims of unlawful charges will move up a higher gear because claimants will be entitled to request extra payment from the court for damages.

 

The clause regarding 'damage' claims is the issue at stake.

 

The Lloyds TSB winning in Birmingham does not stop any claims from success. Claimants must recognise the fact that they have breached their account contract. The various case law on penalties, UTCCR 1999 and SOGA 1982 become relevant only when a breach of contract is established. The simple reply from the Claimant that he did not breach the account contract was the determining factor in the Birmingham case.

[monopoly23]

Whats the avarage wait until a verdict? Anyone know or is it different every time?

[fendyweather]

Cripes the wait on this one is utterly excruciating.......................... Fendy xx

[podgydad]

I'm getting sick of the BBC's reporting on this matter. In every story, they now refer to last weeks Lloyds case as though it has some impact on ongoing claims. It was one judge in one court!

[Mistermind]

UTCCR 1999 touted for over a year is unuseable according to Judge Cooke's ruling. There is that explicit word "adequacy" in the Regulation. Whatever the meaning intended (the judge was critical of the wording) the current physical wording is such that the court is empowered to rule a price as "unfair for being too low" but not "unfair for being too high".

 

All interested can confirm the ruling in the 14-page Approved Judgment, couched in lawyer's language.