This was NOT a judgment on the issues - at all. Therefore it is of absolutely NO relevance to us in terms of the legal issues.
The bank won because the judge did not consider Lloyd's T&Cs because they weren't in the bundle of documents before him. If they had been he would have found without doubt that those T&Cs require the customer not to go overdrawn or exceed an o/d limit. Then he would have found that the charges arise in circumstances constituting a breach of contract and are, as we all know they are, penalty charges.
The judgment ONLY says that the judge had not been persuaded that there was a breach. That consideration was not one of law, but based on the lack of evidence before the judge. Blimey the judge even had a good look for the T&Cs on the internet himself but couldn't find them.
This was ENTIRELY down to an inadequate trial bundle and has nothing whatever to do with the actual issues betwen the banks and their customers. On the basis of the information available to him (or lack of it) the judgment was given in the terms that it was.
There is NO comfort for the banks in this judgment, except that they will try to sell it to the wider world as a vindication of their plundering of their customers' money. Don't let them. Carry on.
The one salutory lesson we can all learn from this is that if you are claiming YOU have to prove every element of your claim, including that the charges are imposed because of a breach of the agreement with the bank.
This means that you MUST have your bank's terms and conditions for the current account on which you are claiming in your trial bundle. Note from the judgement that in this case the bank (lloyds) denied in their defence that there was any term requiring a customer to keep in credit or within an agreed o/d limit. That must have been untrue and again the banks show themselves for what they are.