IG Index Limited v Robert Tchenguiz

IG Index Limited v Robert Tchenguiz

IG Index Limited took all reasonable steps to ensure Mr Tchenguiz satisfied the qualitative and quantitative tests for EPC status under COBS 3.5.3R and 3.5.6R. Even if there had been a breach, FSMA s.138E(2) precludes the contract from being void or unenforceable, and Mr Tchenguiz had no counterclaim for damages. Therefore, IG is entitled to recover the debt and interest claimed.

Parties
Claimant: IG Index Limited; Defendant: Robert Tchenguiz
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2024
Procedural Posture
Commercial Debt Recovery / Final Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Claim allowed; judgment for IG Index Limited.
Legal Topics
Client Categorisation Under COBS, Negative Balance Protection (nbp), Breach of Statutory Duty Under FSMA, Spread Betting Agreements, Product Intervention Rules
Financial Services Regulation Contract Law Client Categorisation Under COBS Negative Balance Protection (nbp) Breach of Statutory Duty Under FSMA Spread Betting Agreements Product Intervention Rules

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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IG Index Limited

Claimant

Robert Tchenguiz

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Debt Recovery / Final Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether IG Index Limited complied with COBS 3.5.3R and 3.5.6R in re-categorising Mr Tchenguiz as an Elective Professional Client (EPC)
  2. 2 Whether Mr Tchenguiz was entitled to Negative Balance Protection (NBP) under COBS 22.5.17R
  3. 3 Whether any breach of COBS rendered the contract void or unenforceable under FSMA s.138E(2)

Ratio Decidendi

IG Index Limited took all reasonable steps to ensure Mr Tchenguiz satisfied the qualitative and quantitative tests for EPC status under COBS 3.5.3R and 3.5.6R. Even if there had been a breach, FSMA s.138E(2) precludes the contract from being void or unenforceable, and Mr Tchenguiz had no counterclaim for damages. Therefore, IG is entitled to recover the debt and interest claimed.

Court Disposition

Claim allowed; judgment for IG Index Limited.

Orders

  • Mr Tchenguiz is liable to IG Index Limited for the debt and interest under the Customer Agreement.
  • The parties are to agree the terms of the order reflecting the judgment; any outstanding matters to be determined if not agreed.