Not an easy read is an understatement!!

As you say though, certainly in this case it seems the trustee has been prevented from reopening the trust deed to gather in the PPI funds. A Court of Session verdict too, which if I understand correctly is binding on Sheriff Courts as they are of lower rank - as long as the facts of the case are not sufficiently different.

As you say though, an appeal would seem likely.

So where does that leave me in the meantime, with BDO still holding onto my cheque?

And well done to TDA and Kevib for wading through that tome!

I'm not sure tinsoldier.

Might give you an argument to make to them I suppose.

However, the circumstances of your case might be different to this case and the Judgment may be appealed anyhow.

Hi tinsoldier,

It's certainly something which you want to make your claims company and their legal representative aware of.

I think the basis of any argument is that if a trustee is discharged, he has no vested interest in a PPI award. It's the same claims company involved in this that I'm using too funnily enough.

I feel sorry for those who have lost out already due to no objections being made to the court.

Hi tinsoldier.

It would be great if you could tell us what your claims company has to say about it.

I'll 'phone them....and let you know.

Seems another case, this time involving BDO has been suspended after this judgement.

I've contacted the claims firm who originally applied for the PPI refund on my behalf. They had no knowledge of this judgement so I quickly pointed them in the direction of TDA's post! I asked them to find out if my ex trustee (whose office is in the same building) is aware of the judgement and await their reply. Well done TDA! Finger on the pulse and all that!!

Thanks tk333.

Thankfully we have friends who have their finger on the pulse a lot more than we do!

I feel like Clarence the Lion from Daktari after reading that!

I don't know how much one judgment applies to other areas, but this phrase from paragraph 40 reminded me of a regular contributor to this forum:

"the trustee is not a party to a clause (11)(iii) termination by composition."

If that's the case, and it has been declared in a judgment from the Court of Session, how could the trustee in the regular contributor's case prevent payment of an offer of composition which had been agreed by the creditors?

I wonder what will happen next with the PPI point.

As far as I learned yesterday, a similar court case involving BDO has been suspended on the back of this ruling. What this means I don't know as I'm not legally trained; perhaps others may know the implications of this.

The view of the trustees on here has been we need clarification after a debate before a judge; we've now had this. What are their views now please?

My view is no different to already stated tinsoldier.

Clearly a very significant development that many readers might be pleased with.

However, I think many interested parties will now want to know whether the decision will be appealed.

I'd agree with what Trust Deed Assistant says - best not to get too far ahead of ourselves here.