Green and Another v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Tomlinson,Lady Justice Hallett,Lord Justice Richards |
| Judgment Date | 09 October 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2013/0138 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 09 October 2013 |
[2013] EWCA Civ 1197
Lord Justice Richards
Lady Justice Hallett
and
Lord Justice Tomlinson
Case No: A3/2013/0138
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
MANCHESTER DISTRICT REGISTRY
His Honour Judge Waksman QC
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
David Berkley QC and John Virgo (instructed by Clarke Willmott LLP) for the Appellants
Andrew Mitchell QC (instructed by Dentons UKMEA LLP) for the Respondent
Nicholas Peacock QC and Catherine Addy (instructed by the Financial Conduct Authority) for the FCA
Approved Judgment
Hearing date : 29 July 2013
On 25 May 2005 the Respondent bank, The Royal Bank of Scotland plc, hereinafter "the Bank", sold to the Appellants, John Green and Paul Rowley, an interest rate swap, hereinafter "the Swap", as a form of hedge against their existing loan liabilities to the Bank. Messrs Green and Rowley allege that the swap was, to use the current expression, "mis-sold" to them by the Bank. The judge below, His Honour Judge Waksman QC, sitting in the Mercantile Court at Manchester, disagreed. Hence this appeal.
At the relevant time the conduct of the Bank in either arranging a swap transaction or advising upon it was governed by the then current Conduct of Business, hereinafter "COB", Rules promulgated by the Financial Services Authority pursuant to its rule-making powers conferred by the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000.
Section 150 of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 provides, so far as material, as follows:-
" 150 Actions for damages.
(1) A contravention by an authorised person of a rule is actionable at the suit of a private person who suffers loss as a result of the contravention, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
…
(3) In prescribed cases, a contravention of a rule which would be actionable at the suit of a private person is actionable at the suit of a person who is not a private person, subject to the defences and other incidents applying to actions for breach of statutory duty.
…
(5) "Private person" has such meaning as may be prescribed."
The Bank was for these purposes an "authorised person" and the Bank conceded for the purposes of this action that Messrs Green and Rowley were "private persons".
The COB Rules said to be relevant are:-
" COB 2.1 Clear, fair and not misleading communication
Application
COB 2.1. 1 R (1) This section applies to a firm when it communicates information to a customer in the course of, or in connection with, its designated investment business.
(2) This section does not apply to a firm when it communicates a financial promotion in circumstances in which COB 3 (Financial promotion) applies to the firm.
Purpose
COB 2.1.2G The purpose of this section is to restate, in slightly amended form, and as a separate rule, the part of Principle 7 (Communications with clients) that relates to communication of information. This enables a customer, who is a private person, to bring an action for damages under section 150 of the Act to recover loss resulting from a firm communicating information, in the course of designated investment business, in a way that is not clear or fair, or is misleading.
Clear, fair and not misleading communication
COB 2.1.3 R When a firm communicates information to a customer, the firm must take reasonable steps to communicate in a way which is clear, fair and not misleading.
COB 2.1.4 G When considering the requirements of COB 2.1.3 R, a firm should have regard to the customer's knowledge of the designated investment business to which the information relates.
COB 2.1.5 G COB 2.1 embraces all communications with customers, for example: client agreements, periodic statements, financial reports, telephone calls and any correspondence which is not a financial promotion to which COB 3 (Financial promotion) applies. Firms should note the requirements of COB 3.8.4 R relating to non-real timefinancial promotions and COB 3.8.22 R relating to real timefinancial promotions.
…
COB 5.4 Customers' understanding of risk
Application
COB 5.4.1 R This section applies to a firm that conducts designated investment business with or for a private customer but does not apply to a firmwhen providing basic advice on a stakeholder product.
Purpose
COB 5.4.2 G Principle 7 (Communications with clients) requires a firm to pay due regard to the information needs of its clients and communicate information to them in a way that is clear, fair and not misleading. Principle 9 (Customers: relationships of trust) requires a firm to take reasonable care to ensure the suitability of its advice and discretionary decisions. The purpose of this section is to ensure that a firm takes reasonable steps to ensure that a private customer understands the nature of the risks inherent in certain transactions.
Requirement for risk warnings
COB 5.4.3 R A firm must not:
(1) make a personal recommendation of a transaction; or
(2) act as a discretionary investment manager, or
(3) arrange (bring about) or execute a deal in a warrant or derivative; or
(4) engage in stock lending activity;
with, to or for a private customer unless it has taken reasonable steps to ensure that the private customer understands the nature of the risks involved."
The designation "R" indicates that the relevant provision is a rule — those provisions preceded by the designation "G" are guidance as to the purpose and application of the rule.
For the purposes of these provisions the Bank was a firm engaged in designated investment business and Messrs Green and Rowley were private customers.
Mr Green was at the material time an estate agent and residential lettings agent in Lytham St Annes. Mr Rowley was at the material time a hotelier and property developer in the same town. They carried on business together in partnership buying and developing commercial property. The judge described them as intelligent and experienced businessmen. He also observed that whilst they were not previously versed in swaps, this particular swap was very straightforward and they would have had no difficulty in understanding it or, if they did not, they would have asked, by which he meant I think that they would have asked the Bank in the circumstances hereinafter described. They also had access to their own independent financial and legal advice from accountants and solicitors.
As at May 2005 Messrs Green and Rowley had two loans from the Bank secured on their properties. The precise details of the loans do not matter. Although it is an over-simplification, it can for present purposes be assumed that the loan was of £1.5 million for a term of fifteen years on an interest only basis at 1.5% above base rate. Base rate as at 25 May 2005 was 4.75%.
Messrs Green and Rowley allege that both prior to and at a meeting on 19 May 2005 they were told by a Mrs Kay Gill and a Mrs Karen Holdsworth of the Bank that the Swap was a good idea and that they should enter into it. Mrs Gill was a Senior Commercial Manager looking after a specific portfolio of business customers, including Messrs Green and Rowley. Mrs Holdsworth was an Area Manager specialising in the arrangement of interest rate management products of which the Swap was one.
The Swap was executed on 25 May 2005. It was preceded by the Bank sending to Messrs Green and Rowley what the judge described as the Terms Letter, which Mr Rowley countersigned as having been read and understood, together with its enclosures. The enclosures included a copy of the Bank's Terms of Business which stated at paragraph 3.2 that the Bank would provide the customer with dealing services on an execution only basis. At paragraph 3.3 thereof the Bank stated that it would not provide the customer with advice on the merits of a particular transaction. Schedule 1 to the Terms Letter, specifically acknowledged by Mr Rowley as having been read and understood, was a Risk Warning Notice in the form then prescribed by the Financial Services Authority. It is unnecessary for the purposes of this judgment to discuss the question whether the provision of a notice in this form amounts to compliance with COB Rule 5.4.3. It is equally unnecessary to discuss whether, on the assumption that provision of the Risk Warning Notice is not or not necessarily sufficient compliance therewith, the Bank did on the facts of this case take reasonable steps to ensure that Messrs Green and Rowley understood the nature of the risks involved in entering into the Swap. The judge held that it did, although that conclusion was equally unnecessary to his decision, as I shall describe.
An interest rate swap is or can serve as an interest rate hedging product. The Swap executed on 25 May 2005 was independent of the loan, although its purpose was to protect Messrs Green and Rowley against the risk of base rate increasing during the term of the loan. An increase in base rate would result in the variable interest rate under the loan, base rate plus 1.5%, increasing accordingly. Both parties would have assumed in 2005 that the margin above base rate would remain constant during the term of the loan. Indeed, the margin was initially fixed, although later agreed variations to the terms of the loan opened up the prospect of an increase in margin being imposed on review or roll-over. But on the assumption that the margin remained fixed at 1.5%, the Swap effectively converted the variable rate of interest under the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mr Stephen James Bull and Others v Gain Capital Holdings Inc. and Others
...case. 206 The Gain defendants rely upon the decision of the Court of Appeal in Green and Rowley v The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1197. There the Court of Appeal held that there was no common law duty of care co-extensive with the statutory duty under what was then s. 150 of ......
-
CGL Group Ltd and Others v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc & National Westminster Bank Plc and Others
...case) Gwenllian Court Hotel Ltd which did not have rights of action under FSMA. 86 In Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWCA Civ. 1197, [2014] Bus. LR 168, the only considered judgment of the Court of Appeal was that of Tomlinson LJ. Richards and Hallett LJJ agreed with him......
-
Cgl Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland
...she submits, be to drive a coach and horses through Parliament's clearly expressed will. Ms Oppenheimer reminds me that Green v Rowley [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 makes it clear, if clarity is required, that the fact that a bank owes a duty to the FCA does not mean that a similar duty is owed to a......
-
Mr Les O'Hare & Mrs Janet O'Hare v Coutts & Company
...Concepts (a firm) [2001] Lloyds Rep PN 235, 241; see also Green v. Royal Bank of Scotland (Financial Conduct Authority intervening) [2014] Bus LR 168, per Tomlinson LJ at paragraph 18). 208 A duty to explain in terms not dissimilar to the Montgomery formulation is found in the COBS rules. I......
-
Court Of Appeal Dismisses Customers Appeals In Interest Rate Hedging Product Mis-Selling Claims
...and others are only actionable by a private person". The Court of Appeal's decision in Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 (and permission to appeal was refused by the UK Supreme Court) clearly rejected the argument a cause of action at common law should be ......
-
FCA Rules May Inform Standard Of Common Law Duty Of Care Owed By Financial Adviser To Client
...arise in these circumstances? The appellant argued that the Court of Appeal's judgment in Green and Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland [2013] EWCA Civ 1197 is authority for the proposition that a common law duty of care cannot exist where there is a statutory duty of care that has been put in ......
-
Financial Innovation, Derivatives and the UK and US Interest Rate Swap Scandals: Drawing New Boundaries for the Regulation of Financial Innovation
...Oxford: Hart.Gilligan, G. (1999) Regulating the Financial Services Sector. London: Kluwer.Green & Rowley v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2013] EWCA Civ 1197.Jaffer, S., Morris, N. and Vines, D. (2014a) ‘Why Trustworthiness isImportant’, in N. Morris and D. Vines (eds), Capital Failure: Rebuil......