LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
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…
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.
LEXLAW has launched an online petition urging the government to establish a Financial Services Tribunal to resolve disputes over financial product mis-selling. The petition highlights the limitations of costly court processes, the inadequate Financial Ombudsman Service, and the FCA’s lack of dispute resolution powers. The tribunal would provide fairness, judicial scrutiny, and deter misconduct by major banks and financial institutions. The campaign follows parliamentary support for a commercial financial dispute resolution platform and aims to give customers better protection and access to justice
Petition for establishing a Financial Services Tribunal to resolve complex disputes between banks and customers. Courts are costly, the Financial Ombudsman Service is limited to low-value claims, and the FCA lacks dispute resolution powers. The Tribunal would provide judicial scrutiny, fairness, and public censure, helping SMEs and consumers secure justice and deter misconduct in the financial services industry. Supporters can register their backing on the UK Government site.
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.
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.
The High Court criticised Dentons and RBS for a “cavalier” attitude toward disclosure in litigation, specifically failing to comply with a court order to produce around 25 million relevant documents related to LIBOR misconduct allegations. Proper disclosure is vital to ensure fairness in litigation, but RBS has a history of inadequate disclosure, including being found to have deliberately withheld documents in previous cases. This pattern raises serious concerns about RBS’s litigation culture and compliance with court rules.