Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 02 AUGUST 2016

Finance Litigation Briefing July 2016: Report And Review On The Latest Cases And Issues

Gowling WLG
Gowling WLG
Contributor
Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG

The firm The firm’s lawyers speak English, French, Russian and Ukrainian. The firm’s client base...

View firm profile
Explore more from Gowling WLG

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

Gowling WLG's finance litigation experts bring you the latest on the cases and issues affecting the lending industry.

  • No duty on lender to advise of onerous clause
  • The court determines where the greatest harm lay
  • Same 'but for' test of causation but different outcome
  • Litigant in person given a second chance

No duty on lender to advise of onerous clause

The High Court has recently considered whether a lender owed a duty of care in contract or tort to advise a borrower of a potentially onerous clause in a loan agreement - and found that it did not.

In Finch v Lloyds TSB Bank PLC, the defendant and a company (B) entered into a 10 year fixed term loan for £11.6 million. The claimant (as assignee of B's cause of action) alleged the defendant had failed to advise B of onerous terms in the loan agreement and, in particular, that it would be liable for the costs associated with repaying the loan early - some £1.5 million. The claimant argued B could not

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from