quote:

---

Originally posted by HighFive
[br]I like many others have been quoted the outcome case as a reason to withhold payment so it probably affects more than you think. The only problem I see is that RBS can now appeal this decision to the Inner Court and then Supreme Court?

---

Thank you - I didn't realise that RBS had been sharing the outcome of the case. Seems a bit cheeky when the official Opinion of Lady Wolffe is only dated the 16th and wasn't published until the 17th!

Unfortunately I don’t think RBS will pay anything out until they have exhausted every legal avenue in regards to this case. As for whether this applies to other cases, I remember reading something in the Mind/Doonen case that said that most Scottish TD’s were written the same way so hopefully this y it s the sane and this judgement can apply to mist if not all.

link to case judgement:

https://www.scotcourts.gov.uk/docs/default-source/cos-general-docs/pdf-docs-for-opinions/2020csoh106.pdf?sfvrsn=0

I have written to RBS as my case is similar to Mrs Donnellys. I will post their reply.

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighFive
[br]Unfortunately I don’t think RBS will pay anything out until they have exhausted every legal avenue in regards to this case. As for whether this applies to other cases, I remember reading something in the Mind/Doonen case that said that most Scottish TD’s were written the same way so hopefully this y it s the sane and this judgement can apply to mist if not all.

---

Reading through the judgement from start to finish - without going straight to the end to see what happens - it really did read as if RBS were going to win.

That may be because a lot of the legal stuff was around the Donnelly team's contention that the original debt was taken out with RBS-as-was, but the court case was being brought by RBS-as-is - so RBS-as-is didn't have a leg to stand on.

That argument lost.

The winning factor had nothing to do with the the way the trust deed was written. And it didn't in any way preclude the possibility that “in other cases, that it would be appropriate to reverse a debtor’s discharge” (para 110).

The shift towards victory for Donnelly comes at para 102 and tightens up further at 108.

Para 111 is probably the critical one, as it examines the details of the Donnelly case including the passage of time: “A very considerable amount of time has passed since 72 the debtor was discharged, more than six years ago, from an insolvency procedure commenced 14 years ago, in respect of debts incurred more than 20 years ago”.

Reading the judgement, that part (and other consequences for Donnelly if the discharge was 'reduced') is the point that won the argument. Not the wording of the trust deed.

As for appeals, they might well happen - but the Donnelly team set out arguments against it in Para 93, point 4.

Letter from rbs which most of you should have a copy reads to all involved in regards to ppi .not worded to a specific case .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke4630
[br]Letter from rbs which most of you should have a copy reads to all involved in regards to ppi .not worded to a specific case .

---

what does this mean?

Kayak hi did you get a copy off letter i have in my possession ,send me an email to lukeg@aol.com I'll email you a copy .

quote:

---

Originally posted by Luke4630
[br]Kayak hi did you get a copy off letter i have in my possession ,send me an email to lukeg@aol.com I'll email you a copy .

---

Email sent to you luke@aol.com

I meant to post this last week pre latest judgement. I assume most people have had the same reply. I have replied to this email asking for their latest position -

In regards to the ongoing case, I have spoken with our Legal Department who have provided me with the following information to pass on to you:

‘The Application for Permission to Appeal to the UK Supreme Court in the Donnelly case was refused. We are, however, still awaiting a decision in the second Donnelly action. The Legal Team have advised me to pass on the following message to you:

While the Bank acknowledges the decision of the United Kingdom Supreme Court not to grant permission to appeal in Donnelly v RBS, the Bank is awaiting the outcome of related litigation before the Outer House of the Court of Session (RBS v Donnelly).

The decision of the court in RBS v Donnelly is expected in the coming weeks. The outcome may again change the legal landscape regarding the payment of PPI Redress in circumstances such as your own. Therefore, the Bank will not make payment of your claim at this stage. We will keep this position under review.’

quote:

---

Originally posted by candlewick
[br]

quote:

---

Originally posted by HighFive
[br]Unfortunately I don’t think RBS will pay anything out until they have exhausted every legal avenue in regards to this case. As for whether this applies to other cases, I remember reading something in the Mind/Doonen case that said that most Scottish TD’s were written the same way so hopefully this y it s the sane and this judgement can apply to mist if not all.

---

Reading through the judgement from start to finish - without going straight to the end to see what happens - it really did read as if RBS were going to win.

That may be because a lot of the legal stuff was around the Donnelly team's contention that the original debt was taken out with RBS-as-was, but the court case was being brought by RBS-as-is - so RBS-as-is didn't have a leg to stand on.

That argument lost.

The winning factor had nothing to do with the the way the trust deed was written. And it didn't in any way preclude the possibility that “in other cases, that it would be appropriate to reverse a debtor’s discharge” (para 110).

The shift towards victory for Donnelly comes at para 102 and tightens up further at 108.

Para 111 is probably the critical one, as it examines the details of the Donnelly case including the passage of time: “A very considerable amount of time has passed since 72 the debtor was discharged, more than six years ago, from an insolvency procedure commenced 14 years ago, in respect of debts incurred more than 20 years ago”.

Reading the judgement, that part (and other consequences for Donnelly if the discharge was 'reduced') is the point that won the argument. Not the wording of the trust deed.

As for appeals, they might well happen - but the Donnelly team set out arguments against it in Para 93, point 4.

---

First of all I’d like to thank you for the condescending tone of your reply. Secondly you’ll have to point out the part of my post that said RBS’s loss was in any way down to the way the TD was written. I was merely pointing out that TD’s have a lot of similar wording and context and that, just like Doonen, there may be a lot if overlapping similarities.

Perhaps you shouldn’t be so quick to get your post down in an effort to look smarter than you are

I think you've misjudged this HighFive and should consider apologising.

Candlewick's message doesn't appear to be in the slightest bit condescending. It's a really helpful and detailed analysis that I learned a lot from reading.

As for the "smarter than you are" comment, I'm not sure we've had many posters here over the years who are either smarter or more knowledgeable than Candlewick. Their input here is much respected and valued by me and the other experts.

Highfive please can you email me on lukecg@aol.com

HighFive's and TDA's most recent posts have me channelling Eliza Bennett - "I deserve neither such praise not such censure".

I appreciate your kind words, TDA, but I wouldn't make such claims myself 🙂

HighFive, when I first started reading the 73 pages, 113 paragraphs of the judgement, including the interminable discussions about RBS-as-is or RBS-as-was, I nearly jumped to the end to just see the final decision and be done with it.

But I didn't. Then, having read through the entire thing, I thought it would be mean not to share the points that I thought others might be interested in. Or to say where they can find those points in the judgement.

Still no “like” button on this forum.

Someone should do something about that!