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
Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

HFW—Simon Petch

HFW—Simon Petch

Global shipping practice expands with experienced ship finance partner hire

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Freeths—Richard Lockhart

Infrastructure specialist joins as partner in Glasgow office

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: No such thing as a ‘Welsh seat’
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
NLJ this week: Jury reform risks justice for efficiency’s sake
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
NLJ this week: Crypto fightback offers ‘new frontier for law’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
NLJ this week: Time to revive the duty to report crime?
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
NLJ this week: When are experts truly ‘necessary’?
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll