The following Financial Services practice note produced in partnership with John Corrie of Herbert Smith Freehills, Ben Goodman of Herbert Smith Freehills, Dan Eziefula of Herbert Smith Freehills and Ceri Morgan of Herbert Smith Freehills provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:
Since 2015, the courts have grappled with the claimant argument that financial institutions owe duties of care in tort directly to their customers in connection with their conduct of the past business review of interest rate hedging product sales announced by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) (then Financial Services Authority (FSA)) in 2012 (the ‘Review’). A number of contradictory High Court decisions followed.
However, in 2017, the Court of Appeal clarified—in three conjoined appeals—that such claimants have little prospect of bringing such claims against the banks conducting that Review. In CGL Group Limited & Ors v Royal Bank of Scotland plc & Ors the Court of Appeal found it was not even arguable that the defendant banks in the three linked cases owed tortious duties to the claimants to conduct the Review with reasonable skill and care. This was primarily because such a duty would undermine the statutory and regulatory regime, which grants customers rights to bring claims against financial institutions only in certain defined circumstances. Such claims should now be amenable to summary judgment.
In addition, the separate High Court decision in Cameron Developments (UK) Limited v National Westminster Bank plc & Ors suggests that customers who accept ‘basic redress’ under the Review will be treated as having settled all claims relating to the way in which
Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK
Complete all the fields above to proceed to the next step.
**Trials are provided to all LexisPSL and LexisLibrary content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisPSL services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.
To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial.
Existing user? Sign-in
Take a free trial
Take a free trial
European Insurance and Occupational Pensions Authority (EIOPA)BREXIT: 11pm (GMT) on 31 December 2020 (‘IP completion day’) marked the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period entered into following the UK’s withdrawal from the EU. Following IP completion day, key transitional arrangements
Reserved judgmentsWhat is a reserved judgment?A court can reserve judgment by giving its decision at a later date in writing, after the trial or hearing (as opposed to an ex tempore judgment which is given by the judge orally straight after the hearing or trial). At the end of the hearing the judge
Proprietary estoppelThis Practice Note considers proprietary estoppel from a generic standpoint.For industry specific guidance on proprietary estoppel, see Practice Notes:•Estoppel and property law•Mortgages by estoppelProprietary estoppel—what is it?Unlike the other forms of estoppel (see Practice
DateD [date]Parties1[name of Landlord] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [number] whose registered office is at] [address] (Landlord)2[name of Tenant] [of OR incorporated in England and Wales with company registration number [number] whose registered office
0330 161 1234