Bank
Fine Care Homes Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc and another [2020] EWHC 3233 (Ch), [2020] All ER (D) 110 (Dec)
The claimant company’s claim that the defendant bank had negligently advised it in relation to the conclusion of a financial product (the collar), and/or had negligently misstated or misrepresented the effect of the collar, failed. The Chancery Division held that, among other things, the bank was entitled to rely on its contractual terms as confirming that the relationship between the bank and the claimant’s controlling director (S) had not given rise to a duty of care to advise S as to the suitability of the collar.
Contract
Freear v Andrews [2020] EWHC 3497 (QB), [2020] All ER (D) 106 (Dec)
The claimant’s applications for orders striking out the defendant’s defence under CPR 3.4, or alternatively granting him summary judgment on his breach of contract and breach of trust claims under CPR 24.2, were dismissed. The claimant brought the claims, seeking recovery of £1,342,407 which represented the
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=961ae4db_1)
95ca96e3d47f4eff8d147c4f0df17c77.tmb-mov69x69.png?sfvrsn=3db5d86b_1)
