Court of Appeal determines that a fiduciary relationship is not a necessary pre-condition to relief in respect of an undisclosed commission paid to an agent

The Court of Appeal has found that a fiduciary relationship is not a necessary pre-condition to relief in respect of an undisclosed commission paid to an agent. Instead, the court should determine whether the agent was obliged to provide information, advice or recommendation on an impartial or disinterested basis, saying that “it is the duty … Read more

Duty of Care – countdown to the much anticipated FCA consultation

Our Financial Services Regulatory colleagues have published a blog post considering the latest developments in the possible introduction of a new “duty of care” owed by authorised persons to consumers in carrying out regulated activities under FSMA. In particular, the article considers the legislative and regulatory developments since the FCA first published a Feedback Statement in … Read more

Redemption periods and liquidity mismatch in authorised open-ended property funds: regulatory update and litigation risks

The FCA has recently published a feedback statement to its consultation into liquidity mismatch in authorised open-ended property funds (CP20/15) (considered in our previous banking litigation blog post). The FCA consultation considered whether property funds should be required to have notice periods before an investment can be redeemed, suggesting a notice period of between 90 and … Read more

High Court strikes out time-barred claims holding that banks did not deliberately conceal facts so as to extend the limitation period

The High Court has granted applications by two banks to strike out claims brought against them after the primary limitation period for the claims had expired. This decision provides a helpful summary of the case law surrounding the operation of section 32(1)(b) Limitation Act 1980 (LA 1980), a provision that we are increasingly seeing claimants … Read more

Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Options: the meaning of “advice” and potential implications for financial product mis-selling claims

In the context of an investor’s claim against the provider of his self-invested personal pension (SIPP) under s.27 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (FSMA), the Court of Appeal has provided guidance on the question of what constitutes “advice” on investments for the purpose of article 53 of the Financial Services and Markets Act … Read more