← All Authorities
United Kingdom professional negligencequincecare dutyimplied terms

Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc

[2010] EWHC 211 (Comm)
JurisdictionUnited Kingdom
CourtHigh Court (Commercial Court)
Year2010
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A bank advising on interest rate hedging products must explain risks clearly, but a duty to advise on suitability arises only if the bank assumed an advisory role beyond mere execution.

Key Principle

A bank advising on interest rate hedging products owes a duty to explain the risks in terms the customer can understand; however, a duty to advise on suitability arises only where the bank has assumed an advisory role beyond mere execution.

Area of Law

banking

Related Cases

Westpac Banking Corporation v Lenthall (2019) 272 CLR 1

A bank owes a duty of care to guarantors to take reasonable steps to ensure they understand the nature and effect of the guarantee under the Code of Banking Practice.

AUSTRAC v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2018] FCA 930

CBA liable for systemic AML/CTF Act contraventions including failure to report suspicious matters and threshold transactions via intelligent deposit machines, resulting in $700 million civil penalty.

Paciocco v ANZ Banking Group Ltd (Full Federal Court) (2015) 236 FCR 199

Full Federal Court held that bank late payment fees were not penalties or unconscionable under consumer protection law as they bore a genuine pre-estimate of loss or legitimate commercial interest.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland plc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Titan Steel Wheels Ltd v Royal...