A recent swaps case has wider implications concerning reliance on misstatements & misrepresentation, says Emma Davies
- Presents four points lawyers can take from the recent case of PAG v RBS.
The impact of the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2018] EWCA 355, [2018] All ER (D) 14 (Mar) on swaps cases has been much discussed. Not a swaps lawyer yourself? Here are four reasons why it still matters.
Mezzanines & misstatement
There is no obligation on any individual, in English law, to actively speak in any given situation—but the law does provide protection in certain situations where one party chooses to actively provide information to another:
- Where a claimant can show an advisory relationship, there is a high level of protection. However, advisory relationships are difficult to establish, and even then, may be defeated by a boilerplate non-reliance clause.
- At the other end of the scale, the law has long recognised a duty not to misstate information when provided (the classic Hedley Byrne situation)
