Members of Quadrant’s banking team analysed the judgment, outlining how the case has impacted on existing misselling claims and the present state of the law in relation to duties that banks owe their customers. 

PAG’s claim before Mrs Justice Asplin included rescission of four interest rate swaps on the basis of five implied representations as to the nature of LIBOR and RBS’s role in determining it, alternatively damages for breach of contract.  The case was also the first to consider a claim relating to RBS’s controversial “turnaround” division, the Global Restructuring Group (“GRG”) and the infamous “dash for cash” email.  The Judge dismissed all of PAG’s claims.

In granting permission Lord Justice Patten found that notwithstanding the difficulties in the appeal: “The appeal will provide a useful vehicle for determining what are likely to be central issues in most similar cases even if parts of the claim may ultimately fail on the facts”.

The appeal has therefore been identified as a “test case” and it will be of great importance to claimants seeking to progress LIBOR related misselling claims as well as those alleging that RBS's GRG restructuring caused the failure of their businesses. 

On Wednesday 21 March Paul Downes QC, Turlough Stone and Emily Saunderson explained the issues that arose in the appeal, the way that the Court of Appeal has resolved the “implied representation” theory, the allegations of LIBOR manipulation and whether a bank has any implied obligation in relation to the “GRG” aspect of the claim.