Is this the end for swap mis-selling claims? The Appeal in Green & Rowley v RBS
By Philip Mantle
One of the difficulties encountered when advising clients as to the merits of their claim that they have been mis-sold an interest rate hedging product (IRHP), usually an interest rate swap, is the paucity of decided case law concerning the sale of such products.
There have been only two reported decisions concerning the (mis) selling of interest rate swaps: the Scottish case of Grant Estates Ltd v RBS  CSOH 133 and the solitary English decision of Green & Rowley v RBS  EWHC 3661. In both cases, the claims of mis-selling against the banks were dismissed.
Green was subsequently taken upon appeal, heard in July 2013, and the findings of the court at first instance were upheld. Although the decision was known in July, the Court of Appeal has only recently handed down formal judgment on 9 October 2013. As this decision represents the solitary appellate authority within the field of swap mis-selling, the formal reasoning behind the court’s judgment has been keenly awaited by both claimant and defendants alike…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the No5 Chambers briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from No5 Chambers
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from No5 Chambers
How interesting: the public interest disclosure requirement of s.43B(1) of the Employment Rights Act
Not everything that may be interesting to the public is likely to be ‘in the public interest’. But is that a commonly held or understood view?
TUPE applies where a client decides to engage a new service provider instead of an existing one, but what if the client instructs the existing service provider to remove an employee from the contract before the TUPE transfer takes place?