header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
25 August 2015 / Charles Enderby Smith
Categories: Features , Judicial review , Procedure & practice , Commercial
printer mail-detail

Far & wide

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Charles Enderby Smith examines the role of the independent reviewer in the IRHP review

There has been an interesting development in the courts this year relating to the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) instigated interest rate hedging product review, which may have significant consequences for any small business affected by the mis-sale of interest rate hedging products (IRHPs) over the last 15 years.

Judicial review

The administrative court has granted permission for the judicial review of a decision approved by KPMG not to award consequential loss to a claimant under the IRHP review agreed between Barclays Bank and the Financial Services Authority (now FCA) in 2013 (the review).

The application for permission was made by a nursing home operator, Holmcroft Properties Ltd, in relation to the conclusion of KPMG (acting as the independent reviewer of the review pursuant to an appointment under s 166 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA 2000)) that the redress offered to Holmcroft in regard to IRHPs mis-sold by Barclays, was “appropriate, fair and reasonable”.

The application

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

DWF—David Abbott & Claire Keat

Senior appointments in insurance services and commercial services announced

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Clyde & Co—Nick Roberts

Aviation disputes practice strengthened by London partner hire

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Ellisons—Marion Knocker

Residential property lawyer promoted to partnership

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Renters’ Rights revolution begins—brace for tribunal chaos
he abolition of assured shorthold tenancies and section 21 evictions marks the beginning of a ‘brave new world’ for England’s rental sector, writes Daniel Bacon of Seddons GSC
NLJ this week: Civil procedure gets a spring overhaul
Stephen Gold’s latest Civil Way column rounds up a flurry of procedural and regulatory changes reshaping housing, alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and personal injury litigation
NLJ this week: Why GP complaints are going nowhere
Patients are being systematically failed by an NHS complaints regime that is opaque, poorly enforced and often stacked against them, argues Charles Davey of The Barrister Group
NLJ this week: Prenups meet a jurisdictional brick wall
A wealthy Russian divorce battle has produced a sharp warning about trying to challenge foreign nuptial agreements in the wrong English court. Writing in NLJ this week, Vanessa Friend and Robert Jackson of Hodge Jones & Allen examine Timokhin v Timokhina, where the High Court enforced Russian judgments arising from a prenuptial agreement despite arguments based on the landmark Radmacher decision
NLJ this week: Has Rylands v Fletcher come back from the dead?
An obscure Victorian tort may be heading for an unexpected revival after a significant Privy Council ruling that could reshape liability for dangerous escapes, according to Richard Buckley, barrister and emeritus professor of law at the University of Reading
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll