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

[forestrich]

Can't believe NatWest haven't asked for costs though. That would have been fair.

 

The cognitive dissonance on here is amazing!

 

It was only a few months ago that the 'TB case will mean we can all claim loads when he wins', which has now changed to 'TB's case doesn't affect our claims'

 

The quote from Martin Lewis shows him for what he is 'I always questioned the wisdom of the claim'. Yes Martin, the word sycophant comes to mind.

 

Would Martin Lewis be questioning the validity should it have won? I think he attaches retrospective thoughts to a lot of his wisdom.

 

I think Tom Brennan's greed and self indulgence has been spotted. This case collapsing will be the beginning (well, not really the beginning, that happened a few months ago) of the end for bank charge claims.

[forestrich]

I've now got some clarity on the appeal confusion. He asked the judge for

leave to appeal which was refused but that does not prevent him from

requesting an appeal at either the high court or court of appeal and he has 21 days to do this.

 

NatWest's costs were not awarded against him as his case was not deemed 'unreasonable' although the details of the judgement, in his view,

seemed to suggest otherwise.

 

Judge Simpkins, who hasn't given an inch to TB throughout, couldn't even

be bothered to give him a written copy of the judgement and Tom now

has to apply to the court for a transcrpt - which he has to pay for - and

get it typed up himself.

 

He said he's definitely very confident of his chances of an appeal not least becuase of the poor quality of the judgement which he described

as 'rubbish'. So much so in fact that he sat through the reading with a barrister freind and on occasion ''it was difficult for us not laugh''.

 

I think TB's comments regarding the judgement are similar in kind to watching your football team get beat (as a Forest fan I'm used to the feeling) and blaming the ref.

 

TB should be well aware that the majority of the legal profession will be scrutinising his comments, and saying things like 'it was difficult not to alugh' are rude and offensive to the Judge. They will not be taken lightly, nor easily forgotten.

 

It's important to remember that withut new evidence an appeal will fail.

 

If TB had any evidence, as he claimed at the start, it would have figured in this case.

 

I don't believe in the conspiracy theories, and I don't believe this Judge treat Brenna unfairly. I think he lost the case as the merit of it was poor and self serving. The legal profession has long held low tolerances of those that are self serving and sees compensation culture as the lowest form of the law. I personally think TB is looked upon as driving the compensation culture that is pushing this country towards american standards.

 

Its a side point but I heard a great joke t'other day, it was to do with compensation claims. There was an impresion of a guy on a 'No win no fee', and the story went:

 

'I was carrying a bucket of boiling tar on a building dite when I tripped over a piece of wood that shuldn't have been there'

 

The comedian in question mocked the fact that 'bits of wood belonged on a building site, and that if he'd tripped over something like a Lucien Freud painting there may well have been reason to say it didn't belong there'

 

He also said that the word boiling gave way to thinking that he should be careful with it!

 

He did admit to having never carried boiling tar, but he had boiled a kettle or two, and they were 'bloody hot'!

 

Made me laugh anyway

[forestrich]

I think you're right, losses aren't held against barristers, as they are merely mouthpieces for clients.

 

In this case, TB was the client and litigant in person, so he didn't merely lose a case as a barrister, he lost his own case. somthing that will not be forgotten.

 

I didn't mean it would harm his career as a barrister, in fact it may do it some good, but his comments will do his appeal no favours. THe fact that he has inferred that a Judge is 'laughable' will make any other judge, who, as both trials are in a similar vicintiy, probably know ech other, apprehensive about overturning a decision.

[forestrich]

You can't use new evidence in an appeal like this. It will be a review of

Judge Simpson's interpretation of the evidence he had to form his Judgement.

 

I know, thats my point, without new evidence, it will fail,and there will no newevidence