Titan Steel iStock_000017777318Small Resize 3

Titan Steel Wheels v RBS

Posted on 11/02/2010 · Posted in Financial Litigation

Classification of customers, giving of advice, exclusion of liability

The Claimant was Titan Steel Wheels Ltd, a manufacturer of steel wheels for vehicles. The Defendant was the Royal Bank of Scotland.

The Defendant provided the Claimant with two currency swap or derivative products in June and September 2007. The Claimant believed that products were unusual and complex, that the Defendant advised it to take the products despite them being unsuitable, and that the Defendant owed them a duty under FSA rules to treat them fairly (i.e. to not mislead them).

The Court suggested that a corporation is unlikely to be classified as a ‘private investor’ because trades are likely to be in the course of carrying on any business of any kind (on which see FSMA 2000). The corporation need not be an investment business to fall outside the scope of private investor, it is enough that trades are sustained, large scale and a necessary concomitant of the company’s trading.

Furthermore, the Court concluded that the terms of the contract show that the Claimant and Defendant had agreed to conduct their business on the understanding that the Defendant was not acting as an advisor and that no related duty of care would arise. Placing trust in an employee with expertise was not enough to give rise to extra legal duties. Most disclaimers were not true exclusion clauses, they simply defined the basis on which the relationship was proceeding, and so the Unfair Contractual Terms Act 1977 would not apply. In the alternative, if a duty was established, the terms of the contract would have the effect of excluding liability.

Link: Titan Steel Wheels v RBS [2010] EWHC 211 (Comm)

Interested in dispute resolution services?

      Contact

Disclaimer: The above case summary is derived from publicly available information and is not intended to be anything more than a statement of the author’s views on the salient factors of the case. It is not intended and should not be understood to be legal advice of any sort. All views are solely those of the author and no use of the summary should be made without statements being checked against the source of information. Expert Evidence Limited takes no responsibility for the views expressed. The copyright of the summary is owned by Expert Evidence Limited but may be used with written permission which may be forthcoming on application through the contact us page. This news item is not intended to imply or suggest that Expert Evidence Limited was involved in the case, only that it is considered an interesting legal development.