The claimant, a customer of the defendant had been charged sums when he went overdrawn beyond his limit. He claimed that the sums were unlawful penalties under the Regulations. The bank said that it had refunded the charges. The claimant sought exemplary and aggravated damages.
Held: The claim should not proceed. The claimant had deliberately sought to prevent the bank repaying the charges, but the bank had repaid the sums deducted with additional sums. There was nothing in the bank’s behaviour to suggest a claim in tort which might found a claim for additional damages.
Pitchford J said: ‘The overriding objective requires the court to deal with a case proportionately, expeditiously and fairly and to allot to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources. It would be disproportionate, in my view, to permit this action to proceed to trial simply for the purpose of placing the bank and the claimant under the spotlight of publicity.’
Judges:
Pitchford J
Citations:
[2007] EWHC 2759 (QB)
Links:
Statutes:
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, Council Directive 93/13
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – HM Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd third Party intervening) HL 3-Aug-2000
Restitutionary Claim against Pofits from Breach
The author had written his book in breach of his duty of confidence. Having signed the Official Secrets Act, he accepted a contractual private law duty. After conviction as a spy, the publication of the book was in breach of the undertaking by not . .
Cited – Douglas and others v Hello! Ltd and others; similar HL 2-May-2007
In Douglas, the claimants said that the defendants had interfered with their contract to provide exclusive photographs of their wedding to a competing magazine, by arranging for a third party to infiltrate and take and sell unauthorised photographs. . .
Cited – Garden Cottage Foods Ltd v Milk Marketing Board HL 1984
In English law a breach of statutory duty, is actionable as such by a private individual to whom loss or damage is caused by a breach of that duty. Lord Diplock said that it was quite unarguable: ‘that if such a contravention of Article 86 gives . .
Cited – Verein fur Konsumenteninformation v Karl Heinz Henkel ECJ 1-Oct-2002
Europa Brussels Convention – Article 5(3) – Jurisdiction in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict – Preventive action by associations – Consumer protection organisation seeking an injunction to prevent . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking, Contract, Consumer, Damages
Updated: 21 May 2022; Ref: scu.261576