- Interest rate hedging product mis-selling claim dismissed at trial (Marz Limited v Bank of Scotland PLC)
- Original news
- What are the practical implications of this case?
- What was the background?
- What did the court decide? What were the judge’s key observations on duty and reliance?
- The ‘mezzanine’ or ‘information duty’
- Factual findings
Dispute Resolution analysis: The High Court has dismissed another claim alleging that a bank mis-sold an interest rate hedging product. It ruled that the International Swaps and Derivatives Association (ISDA) standard terms prevail over the bank’s terms of business and that the parties were bound by their agreement that there was no advisory relationship. In any event, the bank did not provide advice or assume any ‘information’ duty. The director of the company was an experienced businessman with his own accountants. Barrister Charlotte Eborall of 3 Verulam Buildings, London comments on what lessons can be learned from this case and considers the wider implications for these types of cases.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial