UK: Court Of Appeal Holds That Banks Do Not Owe A Duty Of Care In IRHP Redress Scheme

Last Updated: 8 November 2017
Article by Laura Cooke and Laura Chicken
Most Read Contributor in UK, December 2018

In spring 2016, we examined the range of interest rate hedging product ("IRHP") misselling claims that were working their way through the courts following on from the redress scheme agreed between the banks and the Financial Conduct Authority ("FCA"). In this update, we revisit this IHRP litigation following a recent decision by the Court of Appeal around whether a duty of care is owed by those operating such a redress scheme. Had the claimants been successful in their arguments, it would have allowed them to re-open their claims against financial institutions, despite the fact that the underlying allegations of negligence were statute barred.


In 2012, nine banks agreed to review their sales of IRHPs made to non-sophisticated customers since 2001. Once affected customers had been identified, their participation in the redress scheme depended on the type of product purchased. Those who had purchased structured collars were automatically included within the redress scheme, whereas those who had purchased cap products had to have proactively complained to their banks to be included. Purchasers of all other types of IRHPs would be invited to optin if assessed as non-sophisticated.

By the end of 2015, the redress scheme appeared to have been a success on paper with 92% of offers having been accepted, but this was only half the story. Some customers were aggrieved as they were left with little choice but to participate in the redress scheme as their legal claims would have been time-barred or they were not eligible to go to FOS given their size and others complained that the compensation was inadequate, or they were offered alternative hedging products instead, or otherwise excluded from the process on technicalities. A number of claims against the banks then followed by those dissatisfied by the redress received with claimants deploying various arguments, including that the banks owed them a duty of care in conducting the redress scheme.

Claimants in such actions had something of a bumpy ride, with some finding a way through and others meeting a dead end. There were also some potentially conflicting decisions with the High Court in Suremime Limited v Barclays Bank plc (2015) granting permission to amend the Particulars of Claim to plead that the defendant bank directly owed its customers a common law duty of care in connection with the conduct of the redress scheme. However, the Court in CGL Group Limited v Royal Bank of Scotland (2016) held that a similar proposed amendment was not arguable.

Court of Appeal judgment

Three linked appeals came before the Court of Appeal in June 20171 , one of which was the CGL Group appeal. The principal issue to be decided was whether reviews, conducted pursuant to an agreement between the banks and the FCA as part of a settlement to avoid enforcement proceedings by the FCA, which considered that there had been "serious failings" in the way the banks sold these products to small and medium sized businesses, gave rise to a duty of care by the banks to those businesses to carry out those reviews with reasonable care and skill.

Lord Justice Beatson gave the leading judgment, dismissing the appeals.

While Beatson LJ acknowledged that the difficulties of determining when a duty of care arises are well known, there are three general tests to be considered in the round:

(1) whether the defendant assumed responsibility to the claimant; (2) the threefold test in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990) (reasonable foreseeability, proximate relationship and fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty); and (3) whether the addition to existing categories of duty would be incremental rather than indefinable.

The appellants' primary case was that the banks owed them a duty of care because they had "voluntarily" assumed responsibility to them in carrying out the redress scheme by virtue of writing to the customer inviting them to opt-in. Beatson LJ thought the appellants had focussed too heavily on the assumption of responsibility test and that it was not the most appropriate one in this case.

Beatson LJ considered that the regulatory context clearly weighed against the imposition of a duty of care in these cases, stating that it would be "unusual for the common law to impose a common law duty on a statutory regulatory framework". He noted that parliament had already decided that some breaches of the banks' regulatory duties are not to be actionable at all by customers, and others are only to be actionable by private persons. Here, the appellants did not have rights of action under s138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 ("FSMA") to seek damages for losses arising from breach of rules. Consequently the recognition of a common law duty of care to the appellants would be "to drive a coach and horses through the intention of Parliament" and would "undermine a regulatory scheme which has carefully identified which class of customers are to have remedies for which kind of breach". It was clear that Beatson LJ placed much weight on what parliament intended, namely that the FCA was to have broad powers, including the ability to require restitution under s384 or a scheme under s404 FSMA, and that no individual customer could enforce these powers or sue for breach as it would be for the FCA to bring enforcement proceedings. Although the banks and FCA had come to a contractual arrangement to carry out the review, he considered that the review was "in practical terms thrust on them by the FCA rather than truly voluntary" and this pointed against recognising a duty of care.

The fact that the review and redress process was also scrutinised by an independent reviewer (a 'skilled person' appointed under s166 FSMA) also appears to have been a factor relevant to the determination of whether a duty arose. Beatson LJ considered that the banks could not have "assumed responsibility" when they expressly informed customers that an independent reviewer would be examining the decisions. Though the point did not arise, he also commented that the independent reviewer could not have owed a duty of care to the customers either.

Beatson LJ also appeared to be concerned about the broader implications had the appeals been allowed. He noted that the complaint concerned not the provision of banking services, but the way in which complaints about banking services were handled. He considered it was possible to imagine a number of similar customer complaint schemes such that the imposition of a duty of care in respect of a complaint system could have " far-reaching consequences".

Interestingly, Beatson LJ also referenced (or rather downplayed) the Suremime v Barclays decision, noting that the judge had permitted the amendment to the Particulars of Claim whilst expressly stating that he could not be confident that all the relevant facts had been deployed which would be relevant to determining whether a duty of care arose. It appears that the parties in Suremime may have settled before a substantive hearing of the facts took place.


The decision will have come as a welcome relief to financial institutions that had been engaged in such IRHP reviews. However, it does raise the question as to whether banks will be keen to agree to schemes outside of s404 in order to avoid owing a duty of care or otherwise being caught by actionable provisions of FSMA.

It also continues in the same direction as the April 2017 decision in Mazarona Properties Ltd v Financial Ombudsman Service (2017), where the High Court rejected an application for judicial review of a decision taken by a FOS ombudsman when faced with a complaint about a redress offer made (and later withdrawn) following the alleged misselling of IHRPs by a bank. The FOS decided that it could not hear the complaint as the bank's review process fell outside the scope of its compulsory jurisdiction. The High Court agreed, finding that the FOS is only permitted to consider a complaint under the compulsory jurisdiction if it relates to an act or omission by a firm in carrying out regulated activities, and a complaint about the handling of a complaint is not a complaint about the provision or failure to provide a financial service, though a s404 scheme would have come within FOS's jurisdiction pursuant to s404B FSMA.

We shall have to wait and see whether the Court of Appeal's decision in CGL is appealed, or if any other claimants try their luck with ever-more creative arguments as to why a duty does exist. Any claimant whose original claims are time-barred and therefore hoping to have another bite of the cherry by reworking their original allegations as breaches of duty will most likely have had any hopes dashed by this decision.


1. (1) CGL Group Limited (2) Jacqueline Bartels & Adrian Bartels (3) WW Property Investments Limited Appellants v (1) The Royal Bank of Scotland plc & National Westminster Bank plc (2) Barclays Bank plc (3) National Westminster Bank plc [2017] EWCA Civ 1073

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.

Laura Cooke
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
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
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

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 or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq 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 of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions