header-logo header-logo

22 September 2015 / Simon Duncan
Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

The new wave

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll