UK: “Salesman’s Opinion” Does Not Create Duty: JP Morgan Chase V Springwell Navigation Corp

Last Updated: 26 June 2008
Article by Tim Strong and Ivan Wilkinson

Following the Court of Appeal's ruling last year in IFE v Goldman Sachs, Gloster J's detailed recent judgment in JP Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corporation [2008] EWHC 1186 (Comm) has affirmed the principle of caveat emptor in the capital markets. The ruling indicates that "experienced investors" in the bond markets will face an uphill battle if they wish to argue that banks - via their salesmen - owe them any advisory duty or responsibility for investment decisions, where this would be inconsistent with the disclaimers and other terms expressly set out in the deal documentation.


Springwell Navigation Corporation was the investment vehicle of the Polemis family, the owner of a large Greek shipping fleet. During the 1990s, Springwell invested heavily in emerging markets bonds and related instruments. The investments, whose face value exceeded US$700 million, were acquired through JP Morgan Chase ("Chase").

Much of the portfolio was invested in Russia and other CIS states and, following the 1998 Russian default, heavy losses were incurred. Proceedings seeking a declaration of no liability were commenced by Chase in 2001, with Springwell counterclaiming damages soon after - and hence becoming the effective claimant.

Springwell made a wide range of claims against Chase. Its primary claims, based on either breach of contract or negligent misstatement, were based on the contention that Chase owed Springwell a duty of care to advise on the overall balance of Springwell's portfolio and the suitability of new investments. This alleged advisory relationship was said to have arisen out of the regular discussions about potential investments which had taken place in 1990- 1998 between Adamandios Polemis ("AP"), who was responsible for investment decisions at Springwell, and Justin Atkinson ("JA"), a debt security trader at Chase. In the alternative, Springwell also claimed against Chase for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

In its defence Chase relied, amongst other things, on the numerous disclaimers and limitations of liability contained in the contractual documentation relating to the transactions, including: a Master Forward Agreement, a Global Master Repurchase Agreement, two letters setting out terms for "Dealings in Developing Countries Securities", and also the terms of many of the instruments themselves, along with various associated term sheets and confirms.

Breach of contract/negligent misstatement

Springwell claimed that Chase owed contractual and tortious duties to advise it as to the appropriateness of investments and the overall composition of its portfolio. Springwell claimed that the opinions and recommendations expressed by JA to AP between 1990 and 1998 constituted ongoing financial advice from Chase, giving rise to a duty of care in contract or tort. Chase denied this, saying that any of Mr Atkinson's "recommendations" merely constituted marketing, which did not therefore give rise to any such duty.

It was clear on the evidence that the relationship between Chase and Springwell extended beyond a simple "execution only" relationship. JA and AP had had regular discussions about the merits of various investment products, and JA had clearly had an influence on Springwell's general overall investment strategy.

Mrs Justice Gloster accepted that JA was going beyond simple "execution only" transactions, and that this may have given rise to a low level duty of care (essentially requiring the accurate description of products). However, any such duty did not extend to providing "investment advice" entailing responsibility either for the selection of particular investments, or for monitoring the composition of the portfolio as a whole. In line with earlier authorities in this area1, she described the following as the significant factors against the finding of that wider duty of care:

  • Sophistication of Springwell. Although Springwell (as represented by AP) knew significantly less about the capital markets than Chase, and although AP did not always read contractual documentation before signing it, Springwell was nonetheless a sophisticated investor with commercial acumen and with significant experience in capital market investments.

  • None of the signs of an advisory relationship were present. There was no written agreement, which was not conclusive, but was a strong pointer against the existence of a duty (particularly given that Chase's, and the market's, standard practice was to record contractual relationships in written documents). Nor were there any telephone recordings or internal memoranda making reference to the existence of an advisory agreement, or any analyses of Springwell's investment objectives or portfolio statements (as one would have expected if there had been an advisory agreement).

  • Independence of Springwell's investment decisions. Although JA's recommendations and opinions had influenced AP, that latter did not always follow JA's recommendations and, in the final analysis, the judge found, it was AP's desire for high returns which drove the investments. Furthermore, the advice provided by a salesman, even if relied upon, did not create an investment advisory relationship with an associated duty of care.

  • The existence of a duty of care to advise was in any case clearly ruled out by the various disclaimers in the contractual documentation between the parties, and in particular by Springwell's acknowledgement that it had placed no reliance on any advice/representations from Chase in its decision to invest. As a result, Springwell would have been contractually precluded from claiming for losses based on its investment decisions, even if a prima_facie duty of care had otherwise been made out. Having contractually defined the scope of its relationship with Chase, Springwell was not entitled to make a claim in tort which went beyond the ambit of those contractual terms.

The judge gave short shrift to the various arguments that the bank should not be entitled to rely on its written disclaimers of liability. She rejected the challenges to their "reasonableness", under UCTA 1977, for two reasons. First and foremost, in line with the Court of Appeal's ruling last year in IFE v Goldman Sachs2 , she held that most of the relevant clauses were merely clauses defining the extent of the parties' relationship, rather than exclusion clauses, so did not fall within the ambit of UCTA (or, as regards misrepresentations, the Misrepresentation Act 1967). Second, to the extent that there were any residual disclaimers or exclusion clauses falling within the ambit of the statutory provisions, the judge held that they could not be construed as unreasonable given the commercial context and the fact that the parties were of equal bargaining power.

Springwell had also attempted to argue3 that it should not be bound by the various disclaimer wording, as its effect had not been clearly drawn to Springwell's attention. The judge, however, commented that this principle must have "a very limited application to signed contracts between commercial parties operating in the financial markets" and certainly did not apply in the present case - given that the relevant disclaimers were standard for the transactions in question, and did no more than to confirm that Chase did not have an advisory relationship and would not be responsible for Springwell's investment decisions.


Springwell claimed that Chase/JA had made a number of misrepresentations in relation to the suitability of various investment products and particularly misrepresentations about the Russian market.

The judge dismissed all of the misrepresentation claims. Again, this was in essence because of the effectiveness of the various contractual disclaimers, the result of which was that Chase had not made any actionable representations at all. Furthermore, Springwell also expressly confirmed in the contractual provisions that they were not relying on any representations and made the decision to invest independently. The judge concluded that JA's statements were a "salesman's opinion" and that no reasonable person would have placed reliance on these statements in the light of the contractual provisions. Springwell were therefore contractually precluded from bringing any claim for misrepresentation.

Breach of fiduciary duty

Springwell also claimed that Chase were in breach of their fiduciary duties by acting in their own interests, to the detriment of Springwell's interests, by taking advantage of AP's lack of expertise in order to offload unwanted bonds and also by failing to seek consent or failing to disclose the excessive profits they received.

All of these grounds were rejected by the judge - she held that, as it had been established that there was no advisory relationship, it followed that there were no fiduciary duties. In any event, she held that the investment proposals were consistent with Springwell's investment objectives and attitude to risk.

Other issues

In the light of the above, the judge did not strictly have to make any rulings on breach, causation, quantum, or contributory negligence. She did, however, make some interesting indicative rulings on these further areas. For example, she said that even if Springwell had been successful, its claim would have been reduced by up to 70 per cent for contributory negligence for an inappropriate reliance on an implied agreement. This was because it would be an abdication of Springwell's own responsibilities to expect a full advisory service but never to have agreed or confirmed the terms of that service, never to have clearly explained its investment objectives, and never to have raised any concern about the investments acquired.


Yet again this decision shows the UK courts' reticence to interfere with the express terms of capital markets contracts. It therefore illustrates the prime importance, for participants, of ensuring that the contractual documentation reflects the reality of the perceived commercial relationship - and in particular that well-drafted clauses can be effective in limiting the extent of a bank's relationship with investors, and disclaiming responsibility for the latter's investment decisions.

Perhaps most significantly, this ruling demonstrates that investors who sign up to capital markets activity as "sophisticated investors", on arm's length terms, will be treated by the courts as responsible for their own investment decisions - even if in practice they have much less knowledge and expertise than the banks with which they do business. If this is not the relationship they want with their bankers, they will have to ensure, if they can, that the parameters of any wider advisory relationship or investment mandate are clearly and expressly agreed in writing.

Having said that, every case of course turns on its own facts, and even this judgment - which appears to represent somewhat of a "high water mark" for banks' defence arguments - leaves open the possibility of successful claims being brought by investors in different circumstances, for example where particular products have been misdescribed by salesmen and where the facts might lead to a different view being taken on the enforceability of any applicable disclaimers. This ruling is therefore unlikely to be the last word on claims of this type.


1 For example Valse Holdings v Merrill Lynch International Bank [2004] EWHC 2471, and Bankers Trust International PLC v PT Dharmala Sakti Sejahtera [1996] CLC 518.

2 [2007] EWCA Civ 811.

3 Following Interfoto v Stiletto [1989] 1 QB 433.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.