Category: Civil Litigation

Supreme court london westminster law judges judgment thames old facade building lady hale uk

Shanks v Unilever [2019]: UK Supreme Court potentially opens floodgates for further intellectual property claims by inventors

The Supreme Court (Lord Kitchin, Lady Hale, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge and Lady Black sitting) this week have handed down the highly anticipated judgment in Shanks v Unilever…

china chinese insolvency chase debt unpaid invoice lexlaw litigation solicitors barristers in london limitation

Limitation in Litigation: Know your Limits

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.

Financial Conduct Authority FCA UK Logo - LEXLAW Litigation Law Firm in London

FCA’s final report on GRG: Financial watchdog fails (again) to take enforcement action against RBS’s misconduct

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…

litigation court justice london lawyers

Peril of leaving (ineffective) service of litigation claim form to the last minute

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.

RBS Natwest bank litigation Lawyers uk

Data Protection Act (DPA) Subject Access Request (SAR) to Obtain Personal Data Held by RBS GRG, Promontory, Mazars, the FCA and the BBC

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…

Barclays’ appeal in ‘LIBOR test case’ dismissed by Court of Appeal

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.

Britain’s New Banking Scandal

BBC Panorama exposes costly bank ‘swap’ scandal

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.

lloyds bank london lexlaw litigation bank finance solicitor claims against banks lawyers london

The Times: Lloyds swap case settlement revealed

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 in swaps mis-selling claims to avoid losing legal rights.

Green & Rowley -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland: Appeal Dismissed

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.