The Court of Appeal has handed down judgment in WW Property Investments Ltd v National Westminster Bank plc [2016] EWCA Civ 1142.
The CA considered a renewed application for permission to appeal from the decision of HHJ Roger Kaye QC striking out the appellant’s claim for investment mis-selling. The claim arose out of the respondent’s interest rate hedging product review (IRHPR) conducted in relation to three collars and one swap sold to the appellant, and alleged compromises reached between the parties as a result. Limited permission was granted on the following grounds:
1. The compromise agreements signed by the appellant in relation to three collars did not necessarily exclude further claims being brought;
2. It was arguable that a duty of care was owed by the respondent to the appellant in carrying out the IRHPR.
In addition, although it was arguable that it was an implied term of the swap that the respondent would not manipulate LIBOR in calculating obligations thereunder, the Court of Appeal concluded that the Judge had been right to strike out that part of the Particulars of Claim as “obscure”.
The appeal is to be heard with that in CGL Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland ([2016] EWHC 281).