header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
22 September 2015 / Simon Duncan
Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

The new wave

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Simon Duncan reviews an important banking litigation decision for victims of swap mis-selling

The decision of His Honour Judge Havelock-Allan QC in Suremime Limited v Barclays Bank Plc [2015] EWHC 2277 (QB), [2015] All ER (D) 03 (Sep) on 30 July 2015 is hugely important for victims of swap mis-selling.

Suremime was dissatisfied with the redress offer made by Barclays. Having been mis-sold a structured collar in June 2008, Suremime was offered a replacement in the form of a vanilla swap of nine years 10 months duration at a rate of 5.84%, with a break cost of £131,533. Suremime contended that had the redress been conducted properly then a five year interest rate cap at 6.5% would have been offered instead.

Suremime made an interim application to court for permission to amend its particulars of claim. The new claims were:

  • Barclay’s offer to review the sale of the structured collar and Suremime’s election to participate in that review brought a contract into being under which Barclays owed Suremime a duty to conduct the
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
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

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
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
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’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll