What Is HeinOnline?
HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?
Log In
![handle is hein.journals/eurlawreo14 and id is 1 raw text is: [2010] EuLR
A (1) ABBEY NATIONAL PLC (2) BARCLAYS
BANK PLC (3) CLYDESDALE BANK PLC
(4) HBOS PLC (5) HSBC BANK PLC
(6) LLOYDS TSB BANK PLC (7) NATIONWIDE
BUILDING SOCIETY (8) THE ROYAL
B BANK OF SCOTLAND GROUP PLC v
THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
Sir Anthony Clarke MR, Waller V-P and Lloyd LJJ
26 February 2009
[2009] EWCA Civ 116
C Consumer contracts - Bank charges - Meaning of price or remuneration
Whether bank charges formed part of essential bargain between banks and
their customers - Whether assessment offairness of charges by Office of
Fair Trading precluded by operation of statutory exception laid down in
Council Directive 93/13/EC, Art.4(2) and Unfair Terms in Consumer
Contracts Regulations 1999, reg. 6(2) (b)
D
Facts
The eight defendant banks (collectively Abbey) appealed against a decision of
the High Court in which the court had held that the respondent Office of Fair
Trading (OFT) was entitled to assess the fairness of charges (the relevant
charges) imposed by Abbey in relation to its customers' current accounts.
E These charges consisted of unpaid item charges, paid item charges, overdraft
excess charges and guaranteed paid item charges, and were levied whenever
Abbey's current account customers requested it to make a payment or payments
for which they did not have the necessary funds and which were not covered by
any facility arranged in advance.
Abbey contended that any assessment of the relevant charges by the OFT
would be an assessment of the adequacy of the price or remuneration, as
F against the goods or services supplied in exchange and would therefore be
precluded under the exception provided for by reg. 6(2)(b) of the Unfair Terms
in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (the Regulations).
Held
1. It was common ground between the parties that the Regulations were to be
G interpreted so as to give effect to the terms and purpose of Council Directive
C 2010 Hart Publishing Ltd.
CCC 1091-3297/10/010001-48](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.journals/eurlawreo14&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)