The claimant alleged misselling of a complex financial product by the defendant.
Held: Hamblen J set out the relevant principles as to misrepresentation in this context, namely that in a deceit case, the representor should understand that he is making the implied representation and that it had the misleading sense alleged: ‘ . . in order to prove fraud, in respect of each Relevant Individual PAG must establish: he knew that the LIBOR Representations were being made; he knew that the LIBOR Representations were being understood in the sense alleged, and thereby relied upon, by PAG; that it was intended that the LIBOR Representations be understood in that sense; and that he knew that the LIBOR Representations were false.’
Judges:
Hamblen J
Citations:
[2011] EWHC 484 (Comm)
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Graiseley Properties Ltd and Others v Barclays Bank Plc ComC 29-Oct-2012
The claimant sought damages alleging that the wrongful manipulation of the LIBOR interest rate by the defendants had caused them losses. Loan facilities which they had taken out had been subject to interest rates set by reference to LIBOR. The . .
Cited – Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc ChD 21-Dec-2016
Claim for alleged misselling of interest rate swap products. . .
Cited – Boyse (International) Ltd v Natwest Markets Plc and Another ChD 27-May-2020
Claim alleging misselling of interest rate hedging products. The court considered the defendants strike out application, and applications for leave to amend pleadings.
Held: it will normally be appropriate for summary judgment to be pursued on . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Contract, Torts – Other
Updated: 27 November 2022; Ref: scu.430498
