LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
Pursuing a claim on time is critical in any legal matter because the Limitation Act 1980 sets strict deadlines on how long you have to take legal action. If you delay then your claim may be time-barred, so you lose your right to bring a claim before a judge. Even if you have a strong case with clear evidence, it may be impossible to succeed in court.
The Financial Conduct Authority has today published its’ final report into the misconduct of the Royal Bank of Scotland‘s GRG unit. The report purports to explain the FCA’s…
Summary of the Court of Appeal judgment in case of Woodward & anor. v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Limited in which Lexlaw represented the Appellants in place of their former solicitors, Collyer Bristow.
In 2014, Promontory Financial Group and Mazars were appointed by the FCA to prepare an independent skilled persons report into RBS Global Restructuring Group’s conduct, which was produced…
The Court of Appeal dismissed Barclays’ appeal in the ‘LIBOR test case’ (Graiseley v Barclays), allowing claims that banks made fraudulent implied representations regarding LIBOR’s honesty to proceed to trial. The judgment rejects Barclays’ argument that there is no cause of action for failing to disclose dishonesty. The court held that banks proposing LIBOR-based transactions arguably represented the rate’s integrity. This ruling opens the door for LIBOR manipulation claims to be tried in court.
BBC Panorama featured LEXLAW as we helped expose a major bank swap scandal, with widespread mis-selling of complex derivatives to SMEs. Despite a Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) redress scheme reviewing nearly 30,000 cases, only 32 businesses had received payouts at the time of the report.
Our client was awarded about £1 million in a swaps mis-selling settlement with Lloyds after being sold a complex multi-cancellable swap they did not understand. The product allowed Lloyds to cancel the contract if interest rates rose, removing the protection at critical times. The case highlights how banks have been settling many swaps claims discreetly.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the Green & Rowley appeal against RBS regarding swaps mis-selling. The appeal failed mainly because the claimants abandoned their section 150 FSMA claim, likely due to mistaken limitation concerns. The court found no common law advisory duty beyond regulatory compliance in this case. The decision highlights the critical importance of correctly calculating limitation periods.
The Green & Rowley v RBS appeal, heard by the Court of Appeal, focused on whether RBS properly explained the risks of an interest rate swap product. The FCA intervened to clarify regulatory rules on swaps mis-selling. The claimants’ decision to accept the section 150 FSMA claim as time-barred weakened their case. The judgment highlights the critical need to correctly calculate limitation periods and thoroughly manage these complex claims from the outset.
The FCA Swaps Review has faced significant delays since beginning in April 2013, frustrating many affected businesses. Latest FCA data reveals that only 50% of sophistication assessments are complete, 3.9% of cases have reached interviews, and 2.6% have had payments suspended. Delays risk customers losing legal rights due to the six-year limitation period. Concerns exist over banks bypassing the sophistication stage while fairness issues arise over banks self-assessing their mis-selling.