Barrister Required To Sue Bank

Bankslie | 11:18 Thu 14th Apr 2022 | Law

18 Answers

Hi. I want to sue my bank for lying to me, breaking the banking rules and lying to the financial ombudsman. The net loss to me is in excess of one million pounds sterling. It has taken nearly two years to amass the proof and I have a strong if not cast iron case. However i need a good barrister. Any suggestions

Neighbour Dispute

Property

Answers

1 to 18 of 18

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Bankslie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.

For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.

anneasquith

Really. Is this site the best place to find ‘ a good barrister ‘ ?

goodgoalie

There is a regular advert in the back Of Private Eye which says:
"Yes, you can now come direct to a barrister"
[email protected]

Might be worth an email query.

drmorgans

Might it not be better to discuss the case first with a solicitor who can advise you on, amongst other things, which barrister might be most suitable?

dannyk13

You will need to see a solicitor first who will then acquire the services of a barrister.

New Judge

//You will need to see a solicitor first who will then acquire the services of a barrister.//

Not any more, Danny:

https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/for-the-public/finding-and-using-a-barrister/how-to-instruct-a-barrister.html

dannyk13

Thanks NJ.

Peter Pedant

if your loss is over one million pounds
I am not sure if asking walk-ins on AB for advice is good

you need a specialist in Banking law - I dont know one
and two years worth of proof, certainly a solicitor will winnow it down ( you dont want a case with teo years of oral pleading)

Peter Pedant

If the grouse is about money transfer
and the bank has invoked money laundering suspicions

then this case Shah v Midland
hhttps://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2010/31.html
is a good read

Mr Shah said do this and do that
Midland didnt, and then said - gottle of geer: gottle of geer, money laundering
( they arent allowed to say anything ( = tipping off) and gottle of geer, your lips dont move)

and is the leading case still for
suspicion of money laundering = anything which is not fanciful

very very low that is!

there are just some things you dont joke over or even whisper, or - - think about. They may be telepaths
( bombs at airports, terrorism at police stations, and drug cartels in banks)

I was asked if a drug dealer owed me rent - - ding ding!
Did you spot that? it is a question about money laundering - using drug money to pay rent is obviously conversion

Shah loses

DTCwordfan

Me...125k upfront and 15 percent of what we win.

DTCwordfan

and I make a good coffee.

Peter Pedant

you may need more than - am a barista - is that near?

DTCwordfan

Peter, you should have seen the Private Eye news-cutting from down here, as in the West Briton ads, the local caff called Vertigo, 'Wanted one Barrister, £8.50 per hour.'

As pointed out, a rate per minute perhaps and the joys of proofing ads over local newspaper ads.

Peter Pedant

thx DTC

and to Banxtie -
Lonsdale v Natwest 2018 is a more recent case
[2018] EWHC 1843 (QB)

good read if the alternative is tel or reading AB

Peter Pedant

lonsdale - refutes the Banks statement his case is a loada foo and should be dismissed

and L wins on inspection of documents. ( rather obvious to me) - Bank's argument rejected that it would be tipping off ( s333)

He pleads it himself but the Bank used Quentin Tannock and Dentons as solicitors. Hey and nothing in this post serves as a recommendation according to Hedly Burne and heller