Thornbridge Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc

Thornbridge Ltd v Barclays Bank Plc

Barclays did not owe or assume an advisory duty to Thornbridge regarding the swap; all communications were part of a non-advised, arm's-length sales process. The contractual documentation created a contractual estoppel, precluding Thornbridge from asserting reliance or an advisory relationship. The only actionable duty was not to mislead; Barclays did not mislead Thornbridge regarding break costs or product suitability. Even if there was a breach, causation was not established as Thornbridge would not have entered a cap. The claim fails in contract, tort, and under statute.

Parties
Claimant: Thornbridge Limited; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 November 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Commercial / High Court Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Interest Rate Swaps, Advisory Duty, Negligence, Misrepresentation, Contractual Estoppel, Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, Conduct of Business Rules
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Financial Regulation Interest Rate Swaps Advisory Duty Negligence Misrepresentation +4 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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thornbridge Limited

Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Commercial / High Court Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did Barclays owe and breach an advisory duty to Thornbridge regarding the interest rate swap?
  2. 2 Was there a duty to provide information beyond not misleading?
  3. 3 Did the contractual documentation create a contractual estoppel?

Ratio Decidendi

Barclays did not owe or assume an advisory duty to Thornbridge regarding the swap; all communications were part of a non-advised, arm's-length sales process. The contractual documentation created a contractual estoppel, precluding Thornbridge from asserting reliance or an advisory relationship. The only actionable duty was not to mislead; Barclays did not mislead Thornbridge regarding break costs or product suitability. Even if there was a breach, causation was not established as Thornbridge would not have entered a cap. The claim fails in contract, tort, and under statute.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed