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.
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.