Following the judgment in JP Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell
Navigation Corporation (2008), the court held that a bank did
not assume an advisory duty in agreeing an interest rate swap and
the court will look at all the evidence of the relationship between
the parties to determine whether an advisory relationship
Thornbridge was a property investment company. Thornbridge
sought a loan from Barclays which was entered into in April 2008.
In May 2008, as part of the conditions for obtaining the loan,
Thornbridge entered into an interest rate swap agreement with
Barclays. Later in 2008, there were a number of reductions in the
Bank of England base rate, to which payments under the swap were
linked. Subsequently, the swap payments due from Thornbridge
increased significantly. After the swap matured, Thornbridge
claimed against Barclays for damages for losses arising from
alleged negligence, breach of contract and breach of statutory
The court held that Barclays had not recommended the swap nor
assumed an advisory duty. A factor against the finding of Barclays
having provided investment advice is that Barclays did not receive
a fee for any advice. The court drew a distinction between the
advice of an investment adviser and the advice given by a
Even if advice was given, Thornbridge was contractually estopped
from asserting that Barclays had advised it to enter into the
transaction. In the absence of an advisory relationship there was
no common law duty to provide information, simply a duty not to
mislead. Barclays did not mislead Thornbridge and there was no duty
to give full information about the advantages and disadvantages of
This judgment will be welcomed by banks and the detailed
reasoning in the judgment may serve to prevent similar claims in
the future. The judgment is currently being appealed.
The implementation of the mandatory exchange of initial and
variation margin for non-cleared OTC derivative trades in the EU
commenced on 4 February for financial counterparties with the
largest derivatives portfolios.
On February 9, 2017, HM Treasury published a paper summarizing responses to its consultation on the transposition of the revised MiFID and three draft statutory instruments to facilitate transposition.
We consider below the circumstances in which a person may hold an "unpaid vendor lien", the effect of such a lien following the Supreme Court case of Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd  EWHC 2656...
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).