LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
The APPG on Fair Business Banking launched their highly anticipated dispute resolution report on 11 July 2018. The report, authored by Kevin Hollinrake MP and undertaken by the Centre…
Ali Akram and Jaron Dosanjh attended Parliament on LEXLAW’s behalf at the New City Agenda Event, Tuesday 10th July 2018, Committee Room 14, House of Commons
We have today submitted evidence on the ineffectiveness of existing arrangements for dispute arbitration and settlement between SMEs and banks to the Treasury Committee‘s SME Finance Inquiry. Re:…
The door has been opened by the Court of Appeal in PAG v RBS [2018] for misrepresentation claims to be brought by a counter-party to a derivative which…
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…
Our team of bank litigators can assist on litigation claims or high value Financial Ombudsman Service complaints against Metro Bank Plc. We have brought very high value claims against…
Property Alliance Group Ltd (“PAG”) has recently filed leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against a decision of Mrs Justice Asplin in the High Court in…
Major banks and other financial services institutions are often in dispute with customers who deserve protection. Access to court is costly. The FOS ombudsman scheme is inadequate. The…
RBS’s Global Restructuring Group (GRG) has faced allegations of destroying small businesses. LexLaw has sued RBS on behalf of many businesses including Bowlplex, a family-owned bowling business, claiming excessive fees, increased interest rates, and forced equity transfer. Despite a viable business, Bowlplex was transferred to GRG and ultimately sold on by RBS for a £9m profit and a £50m loss for the owners.
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.