vince 62 wrote:
I have just read the judgement...the judge states that EU law was not an issue in this case.Basically he did not even have to use the EU directive(or related UK law),because he deemed that overdraught charges were NOT a seperate product/service,they had to be seen as part of an overall product/service, which is in effect, the whole current account package....he didnt like syphoning off bits of the overall package and then looking at these bits as seperate new contracts, as it were.
So looking at the overall package....the whole account and all its services(including overdraught fees)....if one applied EU law to this, it was fair in EU terms as the banks had clearly laid out terms and conditions (in most cases)and there is a freemarket operating in the industry.
However this was irrelevant to this case anyway because the lawyers acting for the customers were only seeking for the charges to be reviewed as seperate new entity.....and they argued that the charges for this new contract were incomensurate with the service thus provided....the judge simply refused to allow this and so would not take the next step and have it interpreted by law as fair or not..... so EU law never even came into it.....sorry.
Are you reading the same judgement:
The question for the Court is much more limited, and more technical. It is whether
as a matter of law the fairness of bank charges levied on personal current account
customers in respect of unauthorised overdrafts (including unpaid item charges and other
related charges as described below) can be challenged by the respondent the Office of
Fair Trading (the “OFT”) as excessive in relation to the services supplied to the
4. That issue depends on the correct interpretation (in its European context) and
application of Regulation 6(2) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations
1999 SI 1999/2083 (“the 1999 Regulations”). Regulation 6(2) is as follows:
“In so far as it is in plain intelligible language, the
assessment of fairness of a term shall not relate –
(a) to the definition of the main subject matter of the
(b) to the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as against
the goods or services supplied in exchange.”
The context requires “adequacy” to be read in the sense of “appropriateness,” as Lord
Rodger of Earlsferry pointed out in Director General of Fair Trading v First National
Bank plc  UKHL 52,  1 AC 481, para 64.
The Directive and the Regulations
5. The 1999 Regulations were made under section 2(2) of the European
Communities Act 1972 in order to transpose into national law Council Directive
93/13/EEC on unfair terms in consumer contracts (“the Directive”). The 1999
Regulations revoked and replaced similar regulations made in 1994 (SI 1994/3159) in
order (as the explanatory note to the 1999 Regulations puts it) “to reflect more closely the
wording of the Directive”. Regulation 6(2) of the 1999 Regulations does indeed follow
closely the English text of Article 4(2) of the Directive, which is as follows: