Millions of bank customers could be in line for a rebate over unauthorised bank charges if the Supreme Court finds against an appeal from seven banks and a building society.
If banks lose the appeal, they will have to pay out millions
The test case concerns unauthorised overdraft charges and whether or not the Office of Fair Trading can make sure the public is being properly protected.
The High Court and Court of Appeal earlier ruled came under the scope of the OFT, giving the regulator the right to scrutinise bank overdraft charges.
If the Supreme Court finds against the banks it will pave the way for a further hearing to decide whether the charges are fair and, if not, what a fair charge would be.
Thousands of consumers had already reclaimed the charges before the test case was launched, with the banks collectively paying out ?559m in refunds.
Consumer group which? believes the banks could see around eight-million-refund claims from customers hit by the charges since July 2001.
Around 28% of all current account holders have been hit by the charges but 63% of those people have yet to claim.
Jason Walsh from Norwich has ?2,800 riding on the court verdict - that is what he has amassed in charges from HSBC for exceeding his agreed overdraft limit.
The psychiatric nurse, who live in Norwich with his young family, is finding the burden of not knowing if the debt is one he'll have to repay a stressful experience.
He told Sky News: "HSBC is telephoning me several times a day, every day of the week, telling me to repay my overdraft. It's awful."
If the Supreme Court finds against the banks it will pave the way for a further hearing to decide whether the charges are fair and, if not, what a fair charge would be.
The landmark court challenge came about because of a barrister's one-man campaign claiming the banks were acting illegally.
Tom Brennan bought the case against NatWest, arguing that the bank's actions were unlawful because they were not proportionate to the real costs.
A customer, for instance, could be charged ?38 for a transgression while the cost to the bank was in fact less than ?5.
NatWest agreed to settle at the time of Mr Brennan's action in 2007 but the young barrister decided to continue to "fight for justice".
He argued that the fees had caused him considerable hardship during his years as a student and he wanted justice for others.
If banks lose the appeal, they will have to pay out millionsThe test case concerns unauthorised overdraft charges and whether or not the Office of Fair Trading can make sure the public is being properly protected.
The High Court and Court of Appeal earlier ruled came under the scope of the OFT, giving the regulator the right to scrutinise bank overdraft charges.
If the Supreme Court finds against the banks it will pave the way for a further hearing to decide whether the charges are fair and, if not, what a fair charge would be.
Thousands of consumers had already reclaimed the charges before the test case was launched, with the banks collectively paying out ?559m in refunds.
Consumer group which? believes the banks could see around eight-million-refund claims from customers hit by the charges since July 2001.
Around 28% of all current account holders have been hit by the charges but 63% of those people have yet to claim.
Jason Walsh from Norwich has ?2,800 riding on the court verdict - that is what he has amassed in charges from HSBC for exceeding his agreed overdraft limit.
The psychiatric nurse, who live in Norwich with his young family, is finding the burden of not knowing if the debt is one he'll have to repay a stressful experience.
He told Sky News: "HSBC is telephoning me several times a day, every day of the week, telling me to repay my overdraft. It's awful."
If the Supreme Court finds against the banks it will pave the way for a further hearing to decide whether the charges are fair and, if not, what a fair charge would be.
The landmark court challenge came about because of a barrister's one-man campaign claiming the banks were acting illegally.
Tom Brennan bought the case against NatWest, arguing that the bank's actions were unlawful because they were not proportionate to the real costs.
A customer, for instance, could be charged ?38 for a transgression while the cost to the bank was in fact less than ?5.
NatWest agreed to settle at the time of Mr Brennan's action in 2007 but the young barrister decided to continue to "fight for justice".
He argued that the fees had caused him considerable hardship during his years as a student and he wanted justice for others.
Do you really think the charges they levy are fair ? Banks never have and never will be fair. They are there to make money at everyones expense.
,,
Comment