header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
04 May 2018 / Emma Davies
Issue: 7791 / Categories: Features , Banking , Commercial
printer mail-detail

PAG v RBS: why it’s not just for swaps lawyers

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
nlj_7791_davies_carousel

A recent swaps case has wider implications concerning reliance on misstatements & misrepresentation, says Emma Davies

  • Presents four points lawyers can take from the recent case of PAG v RBS.

The impact of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWCA 355, [2018] All ER (D) 14 (Mar) on swaps cases has been much discussed. Not a swaps lawyer yourself? Here are four reasons why it still matters.

Mezzanines & misstatement

There is no obligation on any individual, in English law, to actively speak in any given situation—but the law does provide protection in certain situations where one party chooses to actively provide information to another:

  • Where a claimant can show an advisory relationship, there is a high level of protection. However, advisory relationships are difficult to establish, and even then, may be defeated by a boilerplate non-reliance clause.
  • At the other end of the scale, the law has long recognised a duty
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
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

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