Here’s the vast, 450-paragraph judgment of Andrew Smith J in OFT v Abbey and others, a judgment that will depress those poor banks even more, though it will cheer up money saving experts, impoverished law students, poor pupil barristers and wealthy banking litigation partners.
I always thought this campaign would succeed eventually – though of course I realise this is far from the end. The other thing that’s interesting is to wonder what effect this judgment might have on the UK economy: I can’t think of a more critical time this judgment could have been delivered.
“I can’t think of a more critical time this judgment could have been delivered.”
On a similar note, I wonder when it will be realised that the Human Rights Act 1998 can be used to resurrect the Truck Act 1831?
Consider a bog-standard contract of employment, focusing on two terms; viz, rate of pay and manner of said payment. The rate of pay is usually given in currency of the realm and the manner of pay is usually by payment into a bank account post 1986 (the Wages Act 1986 repealed the Truck Acts 1831 and 1960).
Now, in law, cash in hand and money in the bank are two completely different things. Cash in hand is a proprietary right; money in the bank is a mere chose in action. The only person who has money in the bank is the banker, the account holder only has a chose in action (paraphrased from R v Davenport 1954).
So, considering art 1 of the first protocol … the bog-standard employment contract is illegal, null and void (in the words of the Truck Act 1831, I think s2). The contract is depriving people of their possessions; unlike pre- 1831, where people were paid with carved pieces of wood and other silly tokens, only redeemable in the company shop; this time we’re being paid with choses in action. Usually, there is a big difference between cashing in an IOU from the fat bloke who drinks in the White Horse, to cashing in a chose in action redeemable from the Black Horse: but not in the midst of a credit crunch! (Note – I use the ‘Black Horse’ for rhetorical effect; I have no inside knowledge etc). Simply, this analysis says that as a consequence of HR Act 1998, art 1 of P1, everyone in this country has a right to be paid in cash.
If that came to pass the banks would be crippled. Which of course supports and furthers the above pleadings. The value of people’s earnings are being used as ballast by the banks. Repugnant isn’t it? The invisible, subtle, yet very real theft of the value of people’s earnings.
Finally, Northern Rock has been bailed out, amidst many arguments, one of which was, ‘too big to fail’ (it wasn’t but …). What happens when a bank folds that is too big to bail?
This is great info to know.