A New Gateway for Cross-Border Enforcement: Hague Judgments Convention Comes into Effect in the UK on 1 July 2025

By Lucy Webster and Thulasy Packianathan on June 9, 2025 Posted in Contracts and Agreements, Dispute Resolution

The Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Judgments Convention”) will come into effect in the UK on 1 July 2025. The process of enforcing UK judgments[1] in other contracting states (including all EU Member States (except Denmark), Ukraine and Uruguay) will now be far more streamlined in most cases, thereby reducing the delay, cost and uncertainty of enforcement in those jurisdictions.

While the entry into force of the Hague Judgments Convention in the UK is a welcome step in the facilitation of cross-border dispute resolution, particularly post-Brexit, there are some notable limitations to its scope. For instance, it does not provide for the automatic recognition and enforcement of relevant judgments, judgments must meet certain requirements, and it will apply only to UK judgments where the underlying proceedings were commenced on or after 1 July 2025.

FCA’s discretion upheld in IRHP redress scheme judicial review

By Chris Webber on May 14, 2025 Posted in Banking, Mis-Selling, Motor finance, Regulation

Timely insights into the design of mass consumer redress schemes

In R (All-Party Parliamentary Group on Fair Banking) v Financial Conduct Authority [2025] EWHC 525 (Admin), the High Court examined the FCA’s decision regarding the exclusion of certain customers from the scope of the voluntary Interest Rate Hedging Products (IRHP) redress scheme established in 2012, which was criticised in a subsequent independent review. The case contains important insights into the trade-offs involved in the design of such schemes, given the high likelihood that the FCA will soon be rolling out a redress scheme to deal with motor finance mis-selling.

Court of Appeal reaffirms stance on fiduciary duties in half-secret commission cases

By Chris Webber on March 27, 2025 Posted in Banking, Contracts and Agreements, Dispute Resolution

Some years it seems like there are no cases of any real importance. 2025 is not one of those years.

Last week a strong Court of Appeal doubled down on a key element of the landmark Johnson v FirstRand decision on secret commissions in motor finance (about to be heard before the Supreme Court). In Expert Tooling and Automation Ltd v Engie Power Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 292 the Court held that an energy broker owed fiduciary duties not to accept half-secret commissions for broking an energy supply agreement without getting fully informed consent from its client.

High Court upholds use of omnibus claims in mass motor finance litigation

By Chris Webber on March 24, 2025 Posted in Banking, Dispute Resolution

A recent High Court decision in claims brought by thousands of claimants against motor finance providers has reaffirmed the validity of using omnibus claim forms in large-scale consumer litigation. The ruling has implications both for the many motor-finance mis-selling claims pending before the courts and also for mass claims in a variety of other contexts.

Motor finance claims – the current state of play

By Chris Webber on December 17, 2024 Posted in Banking, Mis-Selling, Motor finance

The prospects of claims against motor finance lenders continues to develop rapidly as courts, the Financial Ombudsman Service, and the FCA continue to grapple with the issues raised by the large volume of cases being initiated. Here’s the current state of play at a glance:

FCA marks principal firms’ homework on appointed representatives – must try harder

By Chris Webber on September 12, 2024 Posted in Fraud and Financial Crime, Investigations, Investment Management, Mis-Selling, Regulation

The current image has no alternative text. The file name is: Old-Fashioned-Schoolgirl-iStock-984792496.jpg

The FCA has been focused on appointed representatives (“ARs”) for many years now, dating back to its 2016 and 2019 thematic reviews. It grudgingly accepts that the AR regime has some cost efficiency, competition, and market access benefits. But it sees ARs as high risk, because it perceives that often principal firms undertake inadequate due diligence before appointing ARs and are lax with their ongoing oversight. It rightly observes that the AR regime has evolved from its original use by insurers and other product providers to distribute their products via a network of ARs, to encompass a wide range of models such as regulatory hosting and networks, and products and services ranging from retail and insurance to asset and investment management.

APP fraud – might banks have a “retrieval duty” ?

By Christian Toms on April 4, 2024 Posted in Banking, Dispute Resolution, Fraud and Financial Crime

Following on from our Blog post and article from November of last year that looked at the potential liabilities of banks and related parties in the context of authorised push payment (“APP”) frauds, the recent decision of Master Brown in CCP Graduate School Ltd v National Westminster Bank PLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 581 (KB) has again seen the court grappling with the question of the liability of receiving banks, this time considering the potential existence of a “duty of retrieval”.

FCA’s Consumer Duty good practice and areas for improvement update – Constructive Criticism or Hard Discipline?

By Paul Anderson on March 26, 2024 Posted in Regulation

When considering the FCA’s enforcement of Consumer Duty, it could be likened to a school teacher attempting to discipline a class. The FCA so far is attempting to retain the authority akin to a headmaster with an iron fist, rather than a flailing substitute teacher with a “kick me” sign attached to their back. Whether the FCA has managed to control its proverbial “class” of firms is yet to be seen, although it is issuing out mixed reviews at parents’ evening for some, and detentions for others.

Anatomy of a fraud series – Powers afforded by search and imaging orders

By Christian Toms on January 25, 2024 Posted in Dispute Resolution, Fraud and Financial Crime, Investigations

Search orders

Search orders are a form of interim, mandatory injunction which require a respondent to allow the applicant’s representatives to enter the respondent’s premises and search for, copy and remove documents or material for the purpose of preserving evidence and/or property which is or may be subject to an action.

Search orders are, therefore, considered to be one of the most draconian orders a court can make, and particularly so as a respondent may be held in contempt of court for failing to comply with this type of order. Accordingly, the court will only grant a search order where it is deemed necessary in the interests of justice, and case law and the Civil Procedure Rules have put in place various safeguards for respondents, including the duty upon the applicant to give full and frank disclosure and a need to give an undertaking in damages.

The Rise of the Pig Butcher

By Ian Debbage on November 24, 2023 Posted in Crypto-Assets, Fraud and Financial Crime

The “pig butchering” scam is not new but has enjoyed a rapid rise in recent years. So much so, that virtually everyone reading this blog will have been an intended mark at some point, probably without knowing it. Indeed, if you have ever received a message from an unknown number with a random message that apparently wasn’t intended for you such as “sorry I missed my appointment” or “Hi mum, this is my new number” then that probably wasn’t an innocent mistake, it was the start of the long con of the 2020s.