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
Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Switalskis—Naila Arif, Harriet Findlay & Ellie Thompson

Firm awards training contracts to paralegals through internal programme

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Ward Hadaway—Matthew Morton

Private client disputes specialist joins commercial litigation team

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Thomson Hayton Winkley—Nina Hood

Cumbria firm appoints new head of residential property

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
NLJ this week: Family law urged to ditch adversarial instincts
Family law must shift from conflict-driven litigation to child-centred problem-solving, according to a major new report. Writing in NLJ this week, Caroline Bowden of Anthony Gold outlines findings showing overwhelming support for reform, with 92% agreeing lawyers owe duties to children as well as clients
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll