Does a bank performing an interest rate hedging product review owe the claimant a duty of care, asks Simon Duncan
- Duty of care & limitation.
- Is imposing a duty of care “more than merely arguable?”
One of the difficulties facing a claimant seeking redress from a bank for allegedly mis-selling an interest rate swap prior to the financial crisis is that such a claim may be met with a limitation defence. This was the position of the claimant in CGL Group Limited v Royal Bank of Scotland [2016] EWHC 281 (QB). The swap complained of was “sold” more than six years before the proceedings were issued and so the claimant had sought to rely on s 14A of the Limitation Act 1980. It was struck out on an application brought by the bank. (See “Know your limits”, www.newlawjournal.co.uk, 27 November 2014).
The claimant also brought an application to amend their particulars of claim. The amendment sought to add allegations that the defendant owed the claimant a common law duty of care having agreed to review the
