In the first of a series of articles on banking litigation, Simon Duncan discusses how limitation can be used to counter swaps mis-selling claims
Many claimants are seeking damages for having been “mis-sold” an interest rate hedging product. However, limitation, if raised, can form an absolute defence to such claims.
In Kays Hotels Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc [2014] EWHC 1927 (Comm) the claimant was faced with this difficulty. The claimant had entered into an interest hedging product with a “collar” in December 2005. The claimant considered that this product had been mis-sold, more particularly that the bank was in breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and in breach of a common law duty of care (the “negligence claim”) having “mis-sold” the product.
Facts
The proceedings were issued on 8 November 2012. The bank’s position from the outset was that the claim was time-barred. The bank applied to have the claim struck out or otherwise summarily dismissed. The claimant accepted that the breach of contract and the breach of
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=16d9dd3d_1)
