Cameron Developments (UK) Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc & Anor

Cameron Developments (UK) Ltd v National Westminster Bank Plc & Anor

The settlement agreement's language was sufficiently broad to preclude both the common law and contractual claims relating to the review process for consequential loss, as these claims were 'in any way connected with' the sale of the swap. The agreement expressly included future claims and liabilities, regardless of the parties' awareness at the time. There was no contract between the claimant and the bank to assess consequential loss, as the review process was not conditional on acceptance of the basic redress offer and was governed by the agreement between the bank and the FSA, not by a separate contract with the claimant.

Parties
Claimant: Cameron Developments (UK) Limited; First Defendant: National Westminster Bank PLC; Second Defendant: The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 July 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil (commercial) / Application for Strikeout or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Claims struck out; summary judgment granted for defendants.
Legal Topics
Settlement Agreements, Interpretation of Contracts, Banking Mis Selling, Consequential Loss Claims, Summary Judgment, Strikeout Applications
Contract Law Banking Law Tort Law Settlement Agreements Interpretation of Contracts Banking Mis Selling Consequential Loss Claims Summary Judgment +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cameron Developments (UK) Limited

Claimant

National Westminster Bank PLC

First Defendant

The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil (commercial) / Application for Strikeout or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement agreement precludes claims relating to the review process for consequential loss
  2. 2 Whether a contract existed between the claimant and the bank to assess consequential loss
  3. 3 Whether the claims should be struck out or summary judgment granted

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement agreement's language was sufficiently broad to preclude both the common law and contractual claims relating to the review process for consequential loss, as these claims were 'in any way connected with' the sale of the swap. The agreement expressly included future claims and liabilities, regardless of the parties' awareness at the time. There was no contract between the claimant and the bank to assess consequential loss, as the review process was not conditional on acceptance of the basic redress offer and was governed by the agreement between the bank and the FSA, not by a separate contract with the claimant.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out; summary judgment granted for defendants.

Orders

  • The common law and contractual claims relating to the review process are struck out.
  • Judgment for the defendants.