Why is the F.S.O. appealing the Millar case ?

My understanding is that judgment in Millar v FSO was 'reserved'. Those that read the initial judgment will know that Justice Hogan delivered the initial High Court judgment and that his judgment is hugely significant because it essentially tells the FSO that if they are simply interpreting contracts in a legalistic fashion - which is what they were doing - then there is little point to having the office. It went further and said that sometimes the legal interpretations are simply wrong. What it amounts to is what many of us thought should have been the case - that he weighs up the matters and does not have to be overly legalistic as opposed to fair.

This reserve judgment in the new Court of Appeal seems likely to be 2-1 upholding Millar.

As the behaviour of Banks' on the tracker matter is so devoid of principles of fairness and honesty it would be difficult not to see the 6 year rule be put aside following this landmark case when Banks' unethical and unprincipled behaviour is finally established.
 
when is judgement expected is their a time frame for reserve judgement
Wizard,
From memory in 2010, the Law Reform Comm recommended to Government that the 6 year rule be amended.
Normally Law Reform Comm recommendations are enacted.
Not so in this case.
There are far too many (land-mines) waiting for Insurance/Banks for Government to enact this. I have no doubt (cannot prove it) that our Banks/Regulators/Legislature have gone into their Bank Protection Modes.If you look at make up of FSO/Central Bank Consumer people , they are ex-bankers and it is hard for them to have a true consumer hat.
...........
In this specific case 6 year rule may be overridden but I ain,t sure will it apply in general.
What I think is each case will still be a (war) .
Hope Millars finally win.
.............................................
Paul .
Not sure what the time frame on giving judgment , normally judges give some indication.Has any AAM member heard?
 
does not the independence of the court not come to the fore, regardless of the banks or goverment.
 
does not the independence of the court not come to the fore, regardless of the banks or goverment.
Paul,

If you mean Judges set the time frame you are correct, but I understood normally they give some indication of when they come back with judgments
 
Also, my understanding is that the FSO is funded by a levy on financial providers, rather than receiving money from the taxpayer.
 
To be clear, both points of view with regard to funding of the FSO are true in part. The FSO get funding by the Government imposing a financial levy on each customer account. The banks incorporate this levy into bank charges, so that Joe Public ends up paying for same. ( taxpayer pays indirectly ). Any shortfall in funding requirments in a given year are met by the government central fund ( taxpayer pays directly ).


In relation to Paul Ward's comment, the public have a short memory, remember Judge Cyril Kelly and Justice Hugh O'Flaharty had to resign due to political telephone calls, etc. Never forget we are living in a banana republic.
 
Back
Top