Comments on: Doomsday: the litigation floodgates open http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/ A barrister gossips & rants on intellectual property law, the legal system and civil liberties. Tue, 02 Dec 2008 14:18:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5 By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13464 Geeklawyer Mon, 11 Jun 2007 12:25:17 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13464 No not really. It shouldn't make any difference to the courts attitude & I doubt it actually does. I'd imagine the judges regard these companies as bottom feeders providing an unnecessary service to gullible punters. But I doubt it affects the judgment significantly. No not really. It shouldn’t make any difference to the courts attitude & I doubt it actually does. I’d imagine the judges regard these companies as bottom feeders providing an unnecessary service to gullible punters. But I doubt it affects the judgment significantly.

]]> By: moon23 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13451 moon23 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 10:25:58 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13451 Do people think that the companies offering to pursue claims on behalf of banking customers are actually undermining the chances of getting a favourable ruling against the Banks? Do people think that the companies offering to pursue claims on behalf of banking customers are actually undermining the chances of getting a favourable ruling against the Banks?

]]> By: moon23 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13442 moon23 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 09:04:27 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13442 It’s almost like the legal system was geared towards protecting the interests UK PLC…. It’s almost like the legal system was geared towards protecting the interests UK PLC….

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13146 Geeklawyer Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:48:20 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13146 <i>It’s bizarre enough that the decision of a district judge is being circulated and in effect used as authority.</i> I have a rather less charitable opinion - it's positively dishonest for the banks & their lawyers to be using it this way. That they do so while knowing it is not a real precedent speaks to their integrity. <i>Yep, we know your pain...Gerlis is one of the good guys among London’s county court judges.</i> Indeed we do know it. There are good County Court judges!? blimey ... It’s bizarre enough that the decision of a district judge is being circulated and in effect used as authority.

I have a rather less charitable opinion - it’s positively dishonest for the banks & their lawyers to be using it this way. That they do so while knowing it is not a real precedent speaks to their integrity.

Yep, we know your pain…Gerlis is one of the good guys among London’s county court judges.

Indeed we do know it.
There are good County Court judges!? blimey …

]]> By: Liadnan http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13136 Liadnan Sat, 09 Jun 2007 09:18:45 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13136 It's bizarre enough that the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6657025.stm" rel="nofollow">decision of a district judge</a> is being circulated and in effect used as authority. Actually, I think that judgment is right in law: the charges are not penalties for breach and hence not void, they are contractual fees. Banks have been quite careful to draft their T&Cs so that going overdrawn is <em>not</em> a breach of contract. If there is a problem to be addressed it should be done by statutory reform in the consumer law field, not by litigation. It's arguable that the later part of the judgment which deals with the points arising on the existing UCTA/UTCCR/SOGA legislation (ie that the fees are in any event unreasonable within the meaning of the acts) is a bit more doubtful than the penalty point. Also I love the LiP's comment of "I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case," Yep, we know your pain. GLOs should be possible for groups of claimants dealing on one set of T&Cs against one bank: that should cut the numbers down a bit. I think the main problem is that no one has really bothered because it's small claims track and no one gave a toss until it was too late. Gerlis is one of the good guys among London's county court judges. It’s bizarre enough that the decision of a district judge is being circulated and in effect used as authority.

Actually, I think that judgment is right in law: the charges are not penalties for breach and hence not void, they are contractual fees. Banks have been quite careful to draft their T&Cs so that going overdrawn is not a breach of contract. If there is a problem to be addressed it should be done by statutory reform in the consumer law field, not by litigation. It’s arguable that the later part of the judgment which deals with the points arising on the existing UCTA/UTCCR/SOGA legislation (ie that the fees are in any event unreasonable within the meaning of the acts) is a bit more doubtful than the penalty point.

Also I love the LiP’s comment of “I was expecting to win as I made a good job of arguing my case,” Yep, we know your pain.

GLOs should be possible for groups of claimants dealing on one set of T&Cs against one bank: that should cut the numbers down a bit. I think the main problem is that no one has really bothered because it’s small claims track and no one gave a toss until it was too late.

Gerlis is one of the good guys among London’s county court judges.

]]> By: Geeklawyer http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13069 Geeklawyer Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:35:34 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13069 No not entirely. I believe the GLO is more targeted at similar issues of fact or law on a case against a single defendant. Thus the thalidomide claims against a particular drug manufacturer; but here one has a group of banks. Wolf said: <i>"As we become an increasingly mass producing and mass consuming society, one product or service with a flaw has the potential to injure or cause other loss to more and more people. Yet our civil justice system has not adapted to mass legal actions. We still largely treat them as a collection of individual cases, with the findings in one case having only limited relevance in law to all of the others."</i> So clearly this was an issue within that. But my recollection is that the changes to the CPR won't allow the banks to be dealt with under GLO as this was not an anticipated problem. I suppose one could arrange groups of claimants against one bank. Bottom line is that the Judges don't think they have those powers. No not entirely. I believe the GLO is more targeted at similar issues of fact or law on a case against a single defendant. Thus the thalidomide claims against a particular drug manufacturer; but here one has a group of banks.

Wolf said:
“As we become an increasingly mass producing and mass consuming society, one product or service with a flaw has the potential to injure or cause other loss to more and more people. Yet our civil justice system has not adapted to mass legal actions. We still largely treat them as a collection of individual cases, with the findings in one case having only limited relevance in law to all of the others.”

So clearly this was an issue within that. But my recollection is that the changes to the CPR won’t allow the banks to be dealt with under GLO as this was not an anticipated problem.

I suppose one could arrange groups of claimants against one bank.

Bottom line is that the Judges don’t think they have those powers.

]]> By: Just another law student http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13065 Just another law student Fri, 08 Jun 2007 21:12:21 +0000 http://blog.geeklawyer.org/2007/06/08/doomsday-the-litigation-floodgates-open/#comment-13065 I concede my ignorance, but isn't this the sort of situation that Group Litigation Orders are designed to deal with? That would at least get a single (hopefully High Court) first instance decision on the question. (It might be an idea to delete the first "http://" from your link to the BBC.) I concede my ignorance, but isn’t this the sort of situation that Group Litigation Orders are designed to deal with? That would at least get a single (hopefully High Court) first instance decision on the question.

(It might be an idea to delete the first “http://” from your link to the BBC.)

]]>