Crestsign Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Sir Colin Rimer |
| Judgment Date | 10 March 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 986 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2014/3346(Z) |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 10 March 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 986
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM
HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE — CHANCERY DIVISION
Mr Tim Kerr QC, sitting as Deputy Judge of the High Court
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Sir Colin Rimer
Case No: A3/2014/3346(Z)
Mr Richard Coleman QC and Mr Richard Edwards (instructed by Slater & Gordon (UK) LLP) appeared on behalf of the Applicant, Crestsign Limited
Miss Laura John appeared on behalf of the Respondents
Order: Application granted
This is a renewed application for permission to appeal. The applicant is the claimant, Crestsign Limited, whose claim for negligence for economic loss against the respondents, National Westminster Bank PLC and The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, was dismissed by Mr Tim Kerr QC, sitting as a deputy High Court Judge in the Chancery Division. The claim was in respect of what was said to be a negligent mis-sale of a complex interest rate swap to Crestsign.
Lewison LJ, on the papers on 16 December 2014, gave Crestsign permission to appeal on ground 1 of its three grounds of appeal. That ground goes to whether the judge was right to conclude that the basis upon which the respondents dealt with Crestsign served to preclude any duty of care arising towards Crestsign in relation to the advice that the judge found that the respondents had, by Mr Gillard, actually given to Crestsign.
Lewison LJ, however, refused Crestsign permission to appeal on its second and third grounds. The second ground is to the effect that, whilst the judge was correct to hold that the respondents had a duty to take care in providing the information and explanations to Crestsign about the products that they, by Mr Gillard, wished to sell, he was wrong to hold as he did in paragraph 153 of his judgment that the duty went no further than that. In particular, Crestsign argued before the judge and wishes to argue under its second ground that the information duty required the respondents to inform and explain to Crestsign the different types of available interest rate hedging products, including in particular...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Philip Thomas and Another v Triodos Bank NV
...to sell". On the facts found in Thornbridge, there was no breach of the Hedley Byrne duty (see paras. 142–202). 74 Crestsign Ltd v National Westminster Bank [2014] EWHC 3043 (Ch) , [2015] 2 AER (Comm) 133 was decided after the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Green and Rowley but befor......
-
St Dominic's Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
...risk. 7 These allegations axe similar but not the same as those which were advanced by the claimant in Crestsign Limited v National Westminster Bank plc and Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2014] EWHC 3043 (Ch) (Mr Tim Kerr QC as he then was) and in Thornbridge Limited v Barclays Bank plc [2015]......