LEXLAW Solicitors & Barristers
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 FCA/FSA Hedging Review is conducted by the banks, not the regulator, and involves recorded interviews or fact-find meetings with customers. These interviews can be one-sided, with the bank’s lawyers asking questions designed to limit compensation. Customers often have limited rights to access bank records or challenge questions. A written statement, prepared with legal guidance, can be a safer way to present the sales experience without the risks of interviews.
The Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards’ Final Report calls for radical reforms to restore banking trust, addressing LIBOR manipulation and derivatives mis-selling. Key proposals include criminal liability for reckless bankers, improved governance, stronger regulator duties, and wider access to the Financial Ombudsman Service for small businesses. The report urges greater financial literacy, transparency, and regulation to prevent banks from disclaiming advisory responsibility when selling complex products.
The Court of Appeal ruled unanimously that RBS procured a previous judgment by fraud, deliberately withholding key documents and misleading their client, lawyers, and the court. The case involved a “sham auction” of loans to create a notional £1.44 billion profit. The judgment raises serious concerns about RBS’s corporate culture and litigation conduct.
](https://lexlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/rbs-litigation-bank-solicitors-barristers-uk.png)
RBS announced a £700 million provision for Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) mis-selling in their 2012 results, a 1300% increase from the previous £50 million. Despite this, RBS downplays its role in the scandal, highlighting court wins and Ombudsman rulings in its favour, which contrasts with the FSA finding over 90% of such products mis-sold. The provision remains inadequate given the scale of affected non-sophisticated customers.
This judgment shows the complexity and fact-sensitive nature of swap mis-selling claims. The claimants were found to be experienced businessmen dealing with a straightforward swap, unlike many cases where claimants are less sophisticated and products are more complex. Key points include the importance of early document disclosure and careful handling of limitation periods. Specialist legal advice is essential to assess and manage swap mis-selling claims effectively. Contact Lexlaw for expert guidance and representation.
Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland plc EWHC 3661 (QB) is a High Court case involving claims by John Green and Paul Rowley against RBS. The case deals with disputes related to financial transactions and banking practices. For detailed legal insights and advice regarding this case or similar banking disputes, contact Lexlaw Solicitors for expert guidance and representation.