Target Rich International Ltd v Forex Capital Markets Ltd

Target Rich International Ltd v Forex Capital Markets Ltd

The claim fails because FXCM's Terms of Business did not oblige it to execute stop loss orders at the specified price or at all; the COBS rules were not incorporated or implied into the contract; no concurrent duty of care in tort arose; and, in any event, the force majeure clause would have suspended any such obligations during the exceptional market event of 15 January 2015.

Parties
Claimant: Target Rich International Limited; Defendant: Forex Capital Markets Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Claim for Damages (breach of Contract and Negligence) / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim dismissed
Legal Topics
Breach of Contract, Negligence, Best Execution Rules, Force Majeure, Implied Terms, Express Incorporation of Regulatory Rules
Contract Law Financial Services Regulation Tort Law Breach of Contract Negligence Best Execution Rules Force Majeure Implied Terms +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Target Rich International Limited

Claimant

Forex Capital Markets Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Claim for Damages (breach of Contract and Negligence) / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether FXCM was contractually or tortiously obliged to execute stop loss orders at the specified price or at all
  2. 2 Whether the FCA Conduct of Business Sourcebook (COBS) rules were incorporated or implied into the contract
  3. 3 Whether FXCM owed a concurrent duty of care in tort to TRI

Ratio Decidendi

The claim fails because FXCM's Terms of Business did not oblige it to execute stop loss orders at the specified price or at all; the COBS rules were not incorporated or implied into the contract; no concurrent duty of care in tort arose; and, in any event, the force majeure clause would have suspended any such obligations during the exceptional market event of 15 January 2015.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed