Tag: Negligence

The Need to Be Clear: Percy v Merriman White and Professional Negligence

In the recent case Percy v Merriman White and Mayall, the Court of Appeal clarified what must be proved by a contribution claimant to succeed in their contribution claim.

photo of an empty road between old buildings

Bringing Professional Negligence Claims: McClean and Others v Thornhill

The case of McClean and Others v Thornhill sheds light on how those providing advice may now protect themselves based on the technicalities of a disclaimer. Multiple investors…

perry raleys solicitors london litigation lawyers lexlaw

Professional Negligence: Supreme Court guidance on valuing the loss of litigation chance

The Supreme Court case of Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 was an opportunity for the Court to consider the correct approach to determining loss of chance…

cfd contracts for difference libor forex derivatives litigation solicitor lawyer barrister london city

FCA expresses “Serious Concerns” over Complex and Highly Risky Contracts For Difference (CFD) Products Mis-sold to Retail Investors

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.

Consumer Rights Act / Unfair terms / Contractual relationships / Expert Legal Advice / Litigation Lawyers / Barristers

Court of Appeal grant permission to appeal based on LIBOR and Negligent IRHP Review arguments

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.

barclays bank london lexlaw litigation solicitor bank misselling claims litigation lawyers barristers libor professional negligence

Legal duty to conduct the FCA IRHP Review Fairly – Suremime v Barclays Bank

The High Court in Suremime Ltd v Barclays ruled it is arguable that banks owe a duty of care to SMEs to conduct the FCA IRHP Review fairly, as agreed with the FCA. Suremime challenged Barclays’ limited redress offer, arguing the bank breached its duty by not properly following the IRHP Review agreements from 2012 and 2013. The court granted permission to add claims that Barclays owed and breached this duty, enabling affected SMEs to seek legal remedies beyond flawed review outcomes. This decision supports SME rights in swaps mis-selling disputes and helps overcome limitation barriers.

rcj royal courts of justice exterior lexlaw litigation tax winding up lawyers

Financial Ombudsman Service Decision Not a Bar to Further Court Action

A Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS) decision does not prevent claimants from pursuing further court action for additional compensation beyond the FOS award. In Clark v In Focus, the High Court ruled that the Ombudsman’s ruling is not legally binding and does not merge causes of action. This is important for bank swaps mis-selling victims who accepted FOS awards but seek further claims. Contact Lexlaw for expert advice on continuing litigation beyond FOS resolutions.

professional negligence no win no fee solicitor in london

Property Fraud: Breach of trust claims against solicitors

Claims against solicitors for breach of trust are increasing following losses from property fraud in loan transactions. Recent Court of Appeal rulings confirm solicitors can be liable for parting with loan money before completion, even if acting reasonably and following protocols. However, relief from liability is possible if conduct is reasonable and not causatively linked to loss.