LEXLAW Solicitors & BarristersWe found 333 results for your search.
In the case of Scott v Government of the United States of America [2019] 1 W.L.R. 774, the High Court (Lord Burnett LCJ, Males J) exhibited an evolving…
The Court of Appeal (Sir Terence Etherton MR, Longmore LJ and Newey LJ) handed down judgment in the highly anticipated appeal from Asplin J’s decision in Property Alliance…
The Property Alliance Group (PAG) appeal against RBS concerning interest rate swaps mis-selling, LIBOR manipulation, and GRG treatment was dismissed by the Court of Appeal in 2018. While PAG lost on the facts, the Court clarified key legal points: banks must exercise valuation rights for legitimate commercial purposes, not maliciously, and duties owed vary by case context. The judgment impacts many pending mis-selling claims, offering guidance on banks’ responsibilities and contractual rights. PAG’s LIBOR manipulation claim failed due to lack of evidence on sterling LIBOR but remains significant for other currencies.
The FCA has issued a strong warning over widespread mis-selling of complex and risky Contracts for Difference (CFDs) to retail investors, finding poor target market definitions, inadequate due diligence, and weak conflict of interest management among providers. Many unsophisticated consumers suffer significant losses, with 76% losing money, including pension funds unknowingly invested in CFDs. The FCA’s crackdown includes tougher regulations and possible supervisory interventions to protect vulnerable investors. Consumers mis-sold CFDs can seek redress through complaints, the Financial Ombudsman, or legal claims.
The High Court ruled in Abdullah v Credit Suisse that the bank mis-sold complex structured products to a conservative Kuwaiti family, breaching statutory duties under sections 138D and 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. The court found Credit Suisse failed to assess the clients’ risk tolerance and provided misleading advice, resulting in a $30 million loss. Key defences by the bank, including claims of contributory negligence and financial suicide, were rejected. This landmark case clarifies banks’ obligations under FCA Conduct of Business rules on suitability and fair communication in sales of complex financial products, offering hope for mis-selling victims.
The Court of Appeal is set to consider whether to grant permission for Property Alliance Group Ltd (PAG) to appeal a High Court ruling that dismissed its claims against RBS. The case involves allegations of interest rate swap mis-selling, LIBOR manipulation, and mistreatment by RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG). The High Court had found PAG to be a sophisticated client with financial expertise and ruled against claims based on lack of specific false statements and exclusion clauses. The appeal will test key issues in sales duties, advisory roles, and the impact of GRG’s conduct on businesses.
The Court of Appeal has allowed WW Property Investments Ltd to appeal against NatWest over mis-sold interest rate derivatives and the negligent conduct of the IRHP review. This landmark decision challenges banks’ redress offers and recognition of consequential losses, encouraging affected customers and SME victims to seek legal advice for potential claims. The ruling could impact limitation periods and existing non-advisory defenses employed by banks, with major implications for financial services litigation and previous IRHP Review outcomes.
Litigation & Dispute Resolution Solicitors to whom results matter. Litigation and dispute resolution is our core practice area and comprises most of the firm’s work. Our litigation lawyer…
Dentons and RBS face High Court allegations of deliberate non-disclosure of critical documents related to the controversial Global Restructuring Group (GRG), disrupting fair trial processes. This follows leaked “Dash for Cash” documents exposing RBS’s serious breaches of disclosure duties in Wall v RBS litigation, where RBS allegedly forced Opal Property Group into financial distress. Previous cases have also highlighted RBS’s poor disclosure practices and lack of candour, raising ongoing concerns about RBS’s litigation culture and compliance with court orders.
Unlawful means conspiracy is a civil tort where two or more individuals collude to harm another using illegal methods. Victims of such misconduct may find this tort useful in seeking compensation for acts that might not be actionable independently. By understanding unlawful means conspiracy, individuals can assess their legal options and protect their rights against potential wrongdoing.