Was the FSO's V Millar's appeal of the High Court decision lawful?

Sarenco,
Look at the post again ( typo in same ). Hope it clarifies matters.
 
Eh, nobody suggested that consumers are precluded from taking legal actions (or from bringing complaints to the FSO for that matter). The Courts did not make any determination whether or not the Millars were consumers. No idea what point you're trying to make here.
 
Sarenco,

The Millar's must have been deemed consumers under the F.S.O. Act 2014 for them to be allowed to make a complaint to the F.S.O. in the first instance. The High court and Appeal court did not take issues with the Millar's being consumers. Therefore the unfair terms in consumer contract regulations apply to the Millar's. Therefore the Pannon judgment of the ECJ applies to the Courts, in that the Court is obliged to consider the contractual term ( danske bank's variable rate clause ), in their own motion, in terms of the unfairness of the term. This, the Appeal Court failed to do. This was a terminal error, and in the interest of justice, the judgment cannot be allowed to stand.

We have gone around in circles, hope this clarifies matters.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do not ask stupid questions of me. A Supreme Court appeal will succeed on the basis that the lower court erred in law or statutory practice. Oh and get a sense of humour.
 
Descart

Again, the Courts did not make any determination as to whether or not the Millars were consumers in respect of the various investment loans. In fact, the Courts did not express any views at all on the eligibility of the Millars to make a complaint to the FSO - it simply was never raised as an issue in the case and the Courts were not required to make any decisions in this regard.

The fact that the FSO heard the Millars' case does not deem them to be consumers as suggested.

As previously stated, I don't agree that the Unfair Contracts Directive would have had any application in this case and not simply because it is not clear to me that the Millars would have been considered consumers. You have obviously convinced yourself that there was something obviously, or at least potentially, unfair about the variable rate clause in the Millars' loan agreements. This was clearly not obvious to the Millars as they were seeking to enforce the very clause that you consider unfair (or at least potentially unfair).
 
Sarenco,

Eureka, that is the whole trust and cut of the Pannon judgment from the ECJ, which, you need to study again, as the penny has not dropped. The Millar's do not have to complain that the said term is unfair, the obligation is on the actual court to examine the unfairness of the contractual term in dispute, on their own motion. Here is brief synopsis of the judgment.

Pannon Judgment

In its judgment the Court explains that, in the field covered by Directive 93/13/EEC, the role attributed to the national court is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task.


The Court also points out that, for the court to find that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, it is not necessary for the consumer to have explicitly contested it.

DO YOU GET IT NOW!
 
Sarenco,

Eureka, that is the whole trust and cut of the Pannon judgment from the ECJ, which, you need to study again, as the penny has not dropped. The Millar's do not have to complain that the said term is unfair, the obligation is on the actual court to examine the unfairness of the contractual term in dispute, on their own motion. Here is brief synopsis of the judgment.

Pannon Judgment

In its judgment the Court explains that, in the field covered by Directive 93/13/EEC, the role attributed to the national court is not limited to a mere power to rule on the possible unfairness of a contractual term, but also consists of the obligation to examine that issue of its own motion, where it has available to it the legal and factual elements necessary for that task.


The Court also points out that, for the court to find that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, it is not necessary for the consumer to have explicitly contested it.

DO YOU GET IT NOW!

Again, the relevant variable rate clause was not in dispute (as you keep insisting). The Millars were trying to enforce a contractual term - they were not disputing its validity.

I am familiar with the Pannon judgment and I would appreciate it if you could stop telling me what I need to do.
 
Sarenco,

Read the Pannon judgment in full and revert. The judgment applies to all contractual terms, whether in dispute, seeking to enforce, seeking to amend, etc., in other words, the court must examine the unfairness of any contractual term before it, if it has the legal and factual means to do so. End of story.


Indeed Judge Hogan puts Danske Bank on notice that if he viewed their variable rate clause in any other way, it would be unfair. He states:

23. In its more common usage the term “market conditions” may be taken to refer to “market conditions generally.” While I agree that the term might also in some contexts refer to particular market conditions experienced, for example, by one undertaking in the relevant market, I should have thought that this was a less frequent usage. If, moreover, the construction urged by Danske were correct, it would mean that its interest rate could be varied by reference to special factors which were peculiarly within its own knowledge, the details of which it would not be obliged to disclose and which, as the Ombudsman himself acknowledged, the customer would have been obliged to accept more or less at face value. If this was, indeed, what was intended by the term “in response to market conditions”, one might have supposed that more explicit language along these lines might also with advantage have been used.

He is of course correct.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Descart

There is no dispute that the ECJ ruled in Pannon that the Unfair Contract Terms Directive must be interpreted as meaning that an unfair contract term is not binding on the consumer, and it is not necessary, in that regard, for that consumer to have successfully contested the validity of such a term beforehand.

However, the Millars were seeking to enforce a contractual term. Leaving aside the question as to whether or not the Millars were consumers in the first place, it would have been perverse for an Irish appellate court to review the fairness of a contractual term that a (supposed) consumer was actually trying to rely on to make their case. The Unfair Contract Terms Directive is designed to protect consumers - not to prevent consumers from pursuing their contractual entitlements.

In my opinion, you are torturing the text of the judgement in the Pannon case to make your argument. You are obviously entitled to take another view.
 
They erred in not complying with their obligations re the Pannon Judgment.
 
For someone who is likely employed by AAM, you take a very anti consumer approach and it is an open forum, not a court.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It is not my opinion that they erred, the fact are; based on their respective judgments, that they did.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For someone who is likely employed by AAM, you take a very anti consumer approach and it is an open forum, not a court.

As far as I know, this forum does not have employees. Did anybody suggest this forum was a court?

You may well perceive yourself as being a champion of consumer rights. I don't consider you to be anything of the sort.
 
Sarenco,

The Pannon judgment speaks for itself. You, on the other hand, speak for the banks.
 
Back
Top