Coleman & Anor v. The Clydesdale Bank & Anor [2007] ScotSC 49 (07 September 2007)

Coleman & Anor v. The Clydesdale Bank & Anor [2007] ScotSC 49 (07 September 2007)

The applications to sist were refused because the English High Court decision would not be binding on Scottish courts, the applications were premature given the lack of clarity on pleadings in the test case, and the burden on the defenders did not outweigh the pursuers' right to have their claims adjudicated promptly.

Citation
[2007] ScotSC 49
Parties
Pursuer: Jason P A Coleman; Defender: Clydesdale Bank; Pursuer: Aaron Hamish Thomson; Defender: Bank of Scotland
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
07 September 2007
Procedural Posture
Summary Cause and Small Claim / Motion to Sist (stay) Proceedings
Outcome
applications to sist refused
Legal Topics
Bank Charges, Penalty Clauses, Unfair Contract Terms, Stay of Proceedings, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Consumer Law Banking Law Bank Charges Penalty Clauses Unfair Contract Terms Stay of Proceedings Judicial Discretion

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason P A Coleman

Pursuer

Clydesdale Bank

Defender

Aaron Hamish Thomson

Pursuer

Bank of Scotland

Defender

Procedural Posture

Summary Cause and Small Claim / Motion to Sist (stay) Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether proceedings should be sisted (stayed) pending the outcome of a test case in the English High Court regarding the legality of bank charges.
  2. 2 Whether the charges deducted by the banks are penalties and thus unenforceable.
  3. 3 Whether the charges are contrary to The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

Ratio Decidendi

The applications to sist were refused because the English High Court decision would not be binding on Scottish courts, the applications were premature given the lack of clarity on pleadings in the test case, and the burden on the defenders did not outweigh the pursuers' right to have their claims adjudicated promptly.

Court Disposition

applications to sist refused

Orders

  • Proceedings to continue without a sist (stay).