Andrew & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc [2012] EWHC B13 (Mercantile) (04 July 2012)

Andrew & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc [2012] EWHC B13 (Mercantile) (04 July 2012)

In PPI mis-selling claims, it is generally appropriate and proportionate to stay proceedings for eight weeks to allow complaints to be processed under the FSA DISP Scheme, and claimants who resist such a stay are at risk of adverse costs orders. Where claims raise issues relevant to the pending Supreme Court decision in Harrison v Black Horse Ltd, a further stay may be ordered. Costs orders should reflect the conduct of both parties, including prior engagement with the complaints process and the timing of applications.

Citation
[2012] EWHC B13 (Mercantile)
Parties
Claimant: Dylan Andrew; Claimant: Ian Draper; Claimant: Lee Gatley; Claimant: James Shier; Claimant: Steven Carroll; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Egg Banking PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings
Outcome
Applications for stays granted as follows: all claims stayed for eight weeks for Scheme complaints process; in Gatley and Shier, a further prospective Harrison Stay ordered; in Draper, Harrison Stay refused. No order as to costs between any parties.
Legal Topics
Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Case Management Stays, Costs Orders, Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act, Limitation
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Case Management Stays Costs Orders Unfair Relationship Under Consumer Credit Act Limitation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dylan Andrew

Claimant

Ian Draper

Claimant

Lee Gatley

Claimant

James Shier

Claimant

Steven Carroll

Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Egg Banking PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be stayed to allow complaints to be processed under the FSA DISP Scheme
  2. 2 Whether a further stay should be granted pending the Supreme Court decision in Harrison v Black Horse Ltd
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded for or against parties consenting or objecting to stays

Ratio Decidendi

In PPI mis-selling claims, it is generally appropriate and proportionate to stay proceedings for eight weeks to allow complaints to be processed under the FSA DISP Scheme, and claimants who resist such a stay are at risk of adverse costs orders. Where claims raise issues relevant to the pending Supreme Court decision in Harrison v Black Horse Ltd, a further stay may be ordered. Costs orders should reflect the conduct of both parties, including prior engagement with the complaints process and the timing of applications.

Court Disposition

Applications for stays granted as follows: all claims stayed for eight weeks for Scheme complaints process; in Gatley and Shier, a further prospective Harrison Stay ordered; in Draper, Harrison Stay refused. No order as to costs between any parties.

Orders

  • All claims stayed for eight weeks to allow complaints to be processed under the FSA DISP Scheme.
  • In Gatley and Shier, a further stay on the Harrison basis to take effect after the Scheme stay, subject to liberty to apply.