Search results

Perspective - Blog

High Court decides that reviving proceedings automatically stayed under CPR 15.11 requires relief from sanctions

Published on 29 Jun 2022. By Daniel Hemming, Partner and Tim Potts, Senior Associate

In a recent judgment, the English Commercial Court in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano has provided guidance on the "automatic stay" provisions of CPR 15.11 and the circumstances in which parties can revive dormant proceedings subject to such an automatic stay.

Perspective - Blog

APP fraud: Commercial Court considers approach to unjust enrichment and knowing receipt claims

Published on 15 Jun 2022. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

The recent Commercial Court decision of Tecnimont Arabia Limited v National Westminster Bank PLC(1) considered the court's approach to a claim for unjust enrichment against a recipient bank in an authorised push payment (APP) fraud context. In particular, the Court examined whether the enrichment can be said to be at the 'expense' of the claimant, what factors amount to enrichment being 'unjust' and when the defence of 'change of position' is available. In relation to knowing receipt, the court considered the question of when property is 'trust property' for the purposes of the cause of action.

Perspective - Blog

Are you a "person discharging managerial responsibility"? High Court clarifies meaning of PDMRs under FSMA

Published on 23 May 2022. By Jake Hardy, Partner

In a recent interim decision in Allianz Global Investors GmbH and Ors v G4S Ltd (formerly G4S plc) [2022] EWHC 1081 (Ch), Mr Justice Miles clarified the scope of the expression "persons discharging managerial responsibility" ("PDMRs") for the purpose of establishing liability under s.90A and Schedule 10A of Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA").

Perspective - Blog

Privy Council decides that banks owe no Quincecare duty to a beneficial owner of monies in an account

Published on 17 May 2022. By Tom Hibbert, Partner, Global Head of Commercial Disputes and Jonathan Cary, Partner and Alan Williams, Partner and Jake Hardy, Partner and Chris Ross, Partner and Olivia Dhein, Knowledge Lawyer

A bank does not owe the beneficial owner of account monies any duty of care in negligence, including any Quincecare duty: this was the conclusion of the Privy Council in the Isle of Man case Royal Bank of Scotland International Ltd v JP SPC4 and another. The appeal concerned a fraud where the account holder had defrauded the beneficial owner of the monies, an investment fund, by paying funds out of the relevant bank accounts in contravention of a legitimate investment scheme.

Perspective - Blog

Court of Appeal strikes out defences that funds' losses resulting from FX manipulation have been passed on to investors following redemption

Published on 06 May 2022. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes and Christopher Wheatley , Senior Associate and Olivia Dhein, Knowledge Lawyer

In Allianz Global Investors GmbH & Ors v Barclays Bank PLC & Ors(1), the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by the claimant funds (the Funds) and struck out defences by the Defendant banks (the Banks) that losses incurred by the Funds had been avoided or passed on upon redemption by their investors.

Perspective - Blog

Court of Appeal holds that Quincecare duty can arise in principle where customer gives instructions in authorised push payment fraud

Published on 21 Apr 2022. By Jonathan Cary, Partner and Olivia Dhein, Knowledge Lawyer

The Court of Appeal has clarified in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK Plc [2022] EWCA Civ 318 that the Quincecare duty, which requires a bank to refrain from acting on a payment instruction and to make inquiries when it is on notice of a serious possibility of fraud, can arise for a bank even where it is the customer themselves giving instructions to pay money out of their account to a fraudster.

Perspective - Blog

Court of Appeal draws distinction between claims for recovery of tax and restitution for tax paid out fraudulently

Published on 07 Apr 2022. By Alan Williams, Partner

In Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners,(1) the Court of Appeal investigated in detail the operation of rule 3(1) of Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (edition 15) (Dicey rule 3), which provides that English courts do not have jurisdiction over actions for "the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue, or other public law of a foreign State". The Court decided that the Danish tax authority's claim did not fall within Dicey rule 3 as it concerned the restitution of monies misappropriated by fraud rather than enforcement of tax.

Perspective - Blog

Where's the damage? High Court dismisses jurisdiction challenge in US$495 million claim

Published on 10 Mar 2022. By Jake Hardy, Partner and Charlotte Henschen (née Ducker), Partner

The High Court has dismissed UBS' challenge to jurisdiction in a ca. US$495 million claim – and in doing so set out useful guidance in terms of how the Court will determine "where the damage has occurred" in cases of economic loss. The judge looked for the most "natural analysis" in determining the manifestation of the loss, and broadly agreed that "the usual answer [in bad investment cases] will be that the loss occurs in, and at the place of, the bank account which was depleted."

Perspective - Blog

ESG claims in the banking and financial markets Sector: will "greenwashing" claims soon be common in the UK?

Published on 14 Feb 2022. By Chris Ross, Partner

Environmental, Social and Governance "ESG" funds are an attractive avenue for investors seeking responsible investment choices.

Perspective - Blog

No knowing receipt claim where equitable interest is destroyed: Byers v Saudi National Bank

Published on 03 Feb 2022. By Emily Saffer, Associate and Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes

The Court of Appeal has held that a claim in knowing receipt will fail if, at the moment of receipt, the beneficiary’s equitable proprietary interest is destroyed or overridden so that the recipient holds the property as beneficial owner.

Perspective - Blog

How aware were you? High Court refuses to strike out fraudulent misrepresentation claim in VW 'Dieselgate' emissions

Published on 03 Feb 2022. By Jessica Davies, Associate and Jake Hardy, Partner

In Crossley and others v Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft and others(1) the High Court refused to strike out or summarily dismiss the fraudulent misrepresentation claim brought by more than 86,000 vehicle owners against Volkswagen ("VW").

Perspective - Blog

High Court dismisses application for extension of limitation period on basis of fraud at summary judgment stage

Published on 20 Jan 2022. By Jake Hardy, Partner and Christopher Wheatley , Senior Associate

In Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors ([2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm), the Commercial Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Libyan Investment Authority's (LIA's) claims against Credit Suisse International (Credit Suisse) and others on the grounds that they were time-barred.

Perspective - Blog

Limitation Act 1980 s.32(1): whether a claimant could have discovered fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to events prior to accrual of the cause of action

Published on 06 Jan 2022. By Jonathan Cary, Partner

The High Court found that, when considering the postponement of the limitation period for the purposes of Section 32(1) of the Limitation Act 1980, the question of whether the claimant could have discovered the fraud with "reasonable diligence" extends to the period before the claimant suffered a loss.

Perspective - Blog

Updated P.R.I.M.E. Finance Arbitration Rules launched for 2022

Published on 09 Dec 2021. By Jonathan Cary, Partner and Jonathan Wood, Partner, Chair of International Arbitration and Olivia Dhein, Knowledge Lawyer

P.R.I.M.E Finance, the Hague-based Panel of Recognised International Market Experts in Finance, has launched updated P.R.I.M.E Finance Arbitration Rules (the Rules), which come into force from 1 January 2022.

Perspective - Blog

Summary judgment application does not amount to submission to English jurisdiction

Published on 09 Dec 2021. By Jake Hardy, Partner and Joe Cresswell, Senior Associate

Does applying for summary judgment application before the determination of a parallel application for a stay, amount to a step in the proceedings that results submission to the jurisdiction?

Perspective - Blog

English Commercial Court upholds the validity of swap contracts entered into by an Italian local authority

Published on 12 Nov 2021. By Tim Potts, Senior Associate and Jake Hardy, Partner

The Commercial Court has found that there was no limitation on the capacity of the Italian local authority Busto di Arsizio to enter into a valid swap contracts with Deutsche Bank.

Perspective - Publication

Disputes Yearbook 2021: Financial disputes

Published on 05 May 2021. By Simon Hart, Partner, Head of Banking & Financial Markets Disputes

As part of the acclaimed Disputes Yearbook, Legal Business interviewed members of our disputes team exploring the litigation landscape and what RPC brings to the table.

Profile

Jessica Davies

Perspective - Snapshot