TRW & Co · Disputes & Arbitration
Banking and Financial Disputes Solicitors in London
Banking litigation solicitors London lenders, borrowers and investors instruct handle disputes over facilities, guarantees, security, derivatives, investment products and payments governed by English law. With the Supreme Court reshaping motor finance and APP fraud claims, FCA redress schemes now running, and non-reliance clauses still decisive, the documents and the choice of forum largely decide the outcome.
Key pointBetween commercial parties, signed non-reliance and basis clauses often defeat mis-selling claims before the facts are examined, so the documents must be tested first. For lenders, strict compliance with notice and acceleration mechanics matters as much as the default itself.
At a glance
Financial List for big cases
The specialist Financial List handles financial disputes over £50m or needing market expertise, and runs a Financial Markets Test Case Scheme for market-wide questions.
Private persons can sue
Section 138D FSMA lets private persons claim damages for an authorised firm's breach of FCA rules; most companies acting in business cannot use it.
Unfair relationships reopened
Section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 lets courts reopen unfair credit relationships, applied by the Supreme Court in the 2025 motor finance appeals.
Motor finance redress schemes
In March 2026 the FCA published PS26/3, confirming two industry-wide motor finance redress schemes made under section 404 FSMA.
APP fraud claims narrowed
Philipp v Barclays held a bank need not second-guess a customer's own clear payment instruction, so recovery now relies on reimbursement rules and recipients.
Swipe or scroll →
What banking and financial disputes cover in England and Wales
Banking and financial disputes are claims arising from lending, security, derivatives, payments, investment products and the wider financial markets. Corporates, funds, lenders and individuals instruct banking litigation solicitors London practitioners when a facility is called in, a guarantee is enforced, a product turns out to be unsuitable, a payment goes missing or a counterparty disputes what a contract means.
London is one of the main centres for these disputes because so much international finance is documented under English law. Loan Market Association facility agreements, ISDA master agreements, bond trust deeds and trade finance instruments routinely choose English law and the English courts or London arbitration, even where neither party is English.
The disputes divide broadly into three groups. Lender-side claims include recovery under facilities, guarantees and security, and defending allegations raised by borrowers. Borrower and investor claims include mis-selling, misrepresentation, breach of duty and challenges to how a bank exercised its contractual discretion. Market disputes include benchmark, close-out and valuation disputes, trustee and agency disputes, and claims arising from fraud on a bank account.
The common thread is that the contract usually decides the outcome. English courts give great weight to sophisticated parties' written bargains, so experienced banking litigation solicitors London clients rely on start with the documents, not the grievance.
The legal and regulatory framework
Most banking disputes are contract claims, decided by applying ordinary principles of interpretation to detailed financial documents. Several statutory and regulatory layers sit on top of that.
Contract, misrepresentation and duties of care
Claims about how a product was sold usually allege misrepresentation, negligent advice or breach of a duty of care. Banks typically rely on "basis" or non-reliance clauses stating that the bank gave no advice and the customer made its own decision. English courts have often given effect to such clauses between commercial parties through the doctrine of contractual estoppel. They are not unassailable: in First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd the Court of Appeal held that a non-reliance clause can be subject to the reasonableness test under the Misrepresentation Act 1967.
Regulatory rules that can be sued on
Section 138D of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 allows a "private person" who suffers loss from an authorised firm's breach of FCA rules to sue for damages. That category includes individuals and, in limited circumstances, businesses that are not acting in the course of business, which excludes most corporate claimants. Investors who acquire securities on the basis of misleading published information may have statutory claims under section 90 or Schedule 10A of the same Act.
Consumer credit and unfair relationships
For regulated credit, section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 lets the court reopen a credit relationship that is unfair to the debtor, including because of undisclosed commission. The Supreme Court applied that provision in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance, and again in the 2025 motor finance appeals, Hopcraft v Close Brothers and Johnson v FirstRand. There the court rejected the wider fiduciary and bribery analysis adopted by the Court of Appeal but upheld an unfair relationship finding on the facts of one claim.
The FCA then used its power under section 404 of FSMA to create industry-wide redress. In Policy Statement PS26/3, published in March 2026, it confirmed two motor finance consumer redress schemes covering different periods. Our note on the motor finance redress scheme explains how they work.
Payments, fraud and the Quincecare duty
Claims against banks over fraudulent payments were reshaped by Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc. The Supreme Court held that the so-called Quincecare duty does not require a bank to second-guess a customer's own clear instruction to pay, even where the customer has been deceived by a fraudster. Victims of authorised push payment fraud now look mainly to the mandatory reimbursement regime, explained in our guide to APP fraud reimbursement, and to claims against the recipients.
Where claims are heard
Larger disputes are usually brought in the Commercial Court or the Chancery Division of the Business and Property Courts. The Financial List is a specialist list for financial disputes of over £50m, or those that need particular market expertise or raise issues of general market importance. It also runs a Financial Markets Test Case Scheme for market-wide questions of English law. Eligible complainants can instead use the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Choosing the forum and the route to redress
The choice of forum affects cost, speed, the remedies available and whether the outcome is binding. Banking litigation solicitors London lenders and borrowers instruct will usually set out the options side by side before any formal step is taken.
| Route | Who it suits | Key features | Main limitations |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial Court or Financial List | Corporates, funds, lenders, high-value investors | Specialist judges, robust case management, interim relief such as freezing injunctions, public judgments that set market precedent | Cost and the risk of paying the other side's costs if unsuccessful |
| Chancery Division and Insolvency and Companies List | Security enforcement, receiverships, trusts and insolvency-linked claims | Experience with property, trusts, mortgages and company law issues | Similar cost profile to other High Court lists |
| Financial Ombudsman Service | Consumers, micro-enterprises and other eligible small businesses | Free to complainants, decides what is fair and reasonable, not only the strict legal position | Award limits apply; an accepted decision binds the complainant and ends a court claim on the same issue |
| FCA-imposed redress scheme | Customers within a scheme's defined scope | Firms must review cases and pay redress under rules set by the regulator | Only available where the FCA has created a scheme, and on its terms |
| Arbitration | Cross-border parties who chose it, including in ISDA and trade finance contracts | Confidential, enforceable under the New York Convention in most jurisdictions | No precedent value and limited appeal rights; see our international arbitration team |
The jurisdiction clause usually decides the forum. Many finance documents contain asymmetric clauses that let the lender sue anywhere but restrict the borrower to the English courts. Those clauses are generally upheld in England, but may be treated differently elsewhere.
How a banking dispute usually runs
The order of steps depends on which side you are on and how urgent the matter is. For a contested claim in the High Court, banking litigation solicitors London practitioners typically work through the following stages.
- Document capture. Gather the facility, security, ISDA or product documents, all amendments and waivers, account records and communications, and freeze routine deletion.
- Contract and limitation analysis. Identify governing law, jurisdiction, events of default, notice provisions, set-off and non-reliance clauses, and every relevant limitation date.
- Urgent protection. Where assets may be moved, consider a freezing injunction or proprietary relief; where a lender is about to enforce, consider whether any challenge is realistic before the security is called.
- Pre-action correspondence. Send or answer a reasoned letter before claim under the Practice Direction on Pre-Action Conduct, with key documents, and assess settlement and ADR options.
- Issue and early applications. Issue in the right list; lenders with clear debt claims often seek summary judgment, while defendants may challenge jurisdiction or seek a stay.
- Disclosure and expert evidence. Disclosure follows the Business and Property Courts' scheme; market practice, valuation and quantum experts are common in derivatives and mis-selling cases.
- Trial, settlement and enforcement. Most claims settle. Where a trial is needed we instruct specialist counsel for the advocacy, and plan enforcement against assets in the UK and abroad from the outset.
Our guides to the civil litigation process and to freezing injunctions explain these stages in more detail.
Documents and evidence that decide banking cases
Financial disputes are won on paper, which is why banking litigation solicitors London clients instruct ask for the full document set first. The court will read the contracts closely and assess oral evidence against what the documents show at the time.
- Transaction documents. Facility agreements, term sheets, security and guarantees, ISDA master agreements, schedules and confirmations, intercreditor agreements and bond or trust deeds.
- Amendments and waivers. Side letters, waiver requests, reservation of rights letters and any course of dealing that may affect how a default is treated.
- Sales and advice materials. Pitch books, product presentations, suitability or appropriateness assessments, risk warnings, client categorisation records and call recordings.
- Account and payment records. Statements, payment instructions, SWIFT messages, security authentication logs and fraud alerts.
- Valuations and close-out workings. Market quotations, close-out calculations, collateral calls and expert valuations at the relevant dates.
- Internal decision records. Credit committee papers, board minutes and internal emails, which matter for causation, reliance and contributory fault.
Communications with lawyers about the dispute are usually privileged, but internal reviews and commercial emails often are not. Our note on legal professional privilege explains how to keep sensitive analysis protected.
Risks and common mistakes
The same avoidable mistakes appear across lender, borrower and investor disputes.
Underestimating basis and non-reliance clauses
Corporate claimants often build a mis-selling claim around what a relationship manager said, only to find the signed documents state that no advice was given and no reliance placed on it. Between sophisticated commercial parties, English courts frequently hold the claimant to that wording. The clause may still be challenged, for example under the reasonableness test in the Misrepresentation Act 1967 or because it does not cover the statement in question. A realistic assessment of those clauses should come before anything else is spent on the claim.
Missing limitation in mis-selling claims
Most contract and negligence claims must be brought within six years, and for mis-selling the clock often starts when the product was sold, not when losses became visible. Statutory claims, misrepresentation and unfair relationship claims each have their own analysis. Investors sometimes delay while a regulatory review or redress scheme runs, only to find that their court claim has become time-barred. Calculate every possible start date, and agree a standstill with the bank if negotiations are continuing.
Taking the wrong step on default
Lenders who accelerate a loan or appoint receivers without complying strictly with notice provisions risk a counterclaim or an injunction. Borrowers who assume that a lender's continued dealing waives a default may find that a reservation of rights letter has preserved the lender's position. Both sides should check events of default, grace periods, notice mechanics and any requirement to act in good faith or rationally when exercising discretion before taking any step that cannot be undone.
Choosing the ombudsman without thinking about the court
The Financial Ombudsman Service is free and can decide what is fair rather than only what is strictly lawful. But its awards are capped, and a complainant who accepts a final decision is bound by it and generally cannot sue on the same complaint. For eligible small businesses with larger losses, the choice between the ombudsman and the court needs careful thought about value, evidence and limitation before the complaint is referred.
Ignoring enforcement until after judgment
A judgment against a borrower or guarantor whose assets are abroad may be hard to convert into cash. The governing law, jurisdiction clause and asset map should be considered together before proceedings are issued. That analysis may point to arbitration, to proceedings where assets are located, or to early freezing relief. Our enforcement of judgments team builds recovery into the strategy from the start.
In financial disputes, the signed documents usually win the argument. The work lies in reading them more carefully than the other side has.
Cross-border financial disputes
Most of the matters handled by banking litigation solicitors London firms involve at least one foreign party. A Gulf lender may be enforcing a guarantee against an Asian sponsor, or a European fund may be in dispute with a London bank over derivatives close-out. The English choice of law clause is a starting point, but foreign insolvency, enforcement and regulatory rules often decide the commercial result.
For clients connected with Bangladesh, typical issues include trade finance and letters of credit for garment and commodity exports, syndicated or bilateral loans to Bangladeshi borrowers governed by English law, guarantees given by Bangladeshi parent companies, and exchange control questions about repaying foreign currency debt. An English judgment is not automatically enforceable in Bangladesh, and a London arbitration award is enforced there under separate legislation. Our UK-Bangladesh trade and finance team works with TRW & Co colleagues in Dhaka on those questions.
Disputes involving Islamic finance, often from the Gulf or Malaysia, raise questions about how English courts treat Shari'a compliance provisions. Singapore and Hong Kong parties frequently choose arbitration instead of litigation. Chinese counterparties raise particular enforcement questions, which make early asset mapping essential.
Before calling a default or issuing a claim against a foreign obligor, map where its assets are and whether an English judgment or a London award will be recognised there. The answer may change the forum, the timing and the first application you make.
How our banking litigation solicitors London team helps
TRW & Co's London office is authorised and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. We act for lenders, borrowers, investors and other market participants in disputes governed by English law. We work closely with our banking and finance and financial services regulation colleagues so that transactional and regulatory context shapes the litigation strategy.
Lender recovery and enforcement
Claims under facilities, guarantees and indemnities, enforcement of security and summary judgment applications. We check notice and acceleration steps before they are taken, to reduce counterclaim risk.
Borrower and guarantor defence
Challenges to events of default, the exercise of contractual discretions and the validity of guarantees. We look at negotiated outcomes, including standstills and restructurings, alongside the litigation.
Mis-selling and investor claims
Claims about derivatives, structured products and investments, including section 138D FSMA and misrepresentation. We assess basis clauses, limitation and the ombudsman option at the outset.
Payments and fraud
Claims arising from fraudulent or misdirected payments, against banks and recipients, with tracing and freezing relief. We coordinate with our civil fraud and asset recovery team.
Derivatives and market disputes
ISDA close-out and valuation disputes, benchmark issues, trustee and agent disputes and intercreditor conflicts, where the wording of market-standard documents is decisive.
Consumer credit and redress
Advice to lenders and brokers on unfair relationship claims, complaints handling and FCA redress schemes, including motor finance, with input from our consumer credit team.
Where advocacy in the higher courts is required, we instruct specialist counsel and work with them as one team. Our wider commercial litigation practice and the full list on our practices show how these disputes connect to other areas.
Recent developments that change the advice
Several developments since 2023 affect how banking litigation solicitors London clients instruct now approach disputes:
- Motor finance. The Supreme Court's 2025 decision narrowed the legal basis for commission claims, and the FCA's 2026 redress schemes now provide a structured route for many consumers. Lenders face scheme obligations as well as residual litigation risk.
- APP fraud. Philipp v Barclays closed off most claims that a bank should have refused a customer's own authorised instruction, shifting attention to reimbursement rules and recipient-side claims.
- ADR. Since Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil and the 2024 rule changes, courts can order parties into ADR, so mediation strategy is part of every case plan.
- Funding. The Supreme Court's PACCAR decision unsettled litigation funding agreements in 2023, and reversing legislation was not included in the May 2026 King's Speech. Investor claims that depend on third-party funding need careful structuring; see our note on litigation funding.
Checklist for decision-makers
Before taking a formal step in a financial dispute, boards, treasurers and investors should be able to answer these questions.
- Which documents govern the relationship, including every amendment, waiver and side letter?
- What law governs, which forum is chosen, and is the jurisdiction clause asymmetric?
- Has an event of default occurred, and have the notice and grace period requirements been met exactly?
- Do basis, non-reliance or exclusion clauses limit the claim, and can they be challenged?
- What is the earliest possible limitation date, and is a standstill in place?
- Is the claimant eligible for the Financial Ombudsman Service or an FCA redress scheme, and would that route be better or worse than court?
- Where are the counterparty's assets, and will a judgment or award be enforceable there?
- Is urgent relief needed to stop assets being moved or security being enforced?
- How will the dispute be funded, and when should mediation be proposed?
To discuss a lending, derivatives, investment or payment dispute, contact our London office. Our banking litigation solicitors London team can review the documents and set out the options.
Frequently asked questions
01Can I sue my bank for mis-selling an interest rate hedge or other product?
Possibly, but corporate claimants face real hurdles. Most product documents say the bank gave no advice and the customer did not rely on any statement, and English courts often give effect to those clauses between commercial parties. Section 138D FSMA claims for breach of FCA rules are generally limited to private persons, which excludes most companies acting in the course of business. Claims may still exist in misrepresentation, under an advisory relationship or where the clauses fail a reasonableness test. Limitation is often the decisive issue.
02What is the Financial List and does my dispute qualify?
The Financial List is a specialist list within the Business and Property Courts, drawing judges from the Commercial Court and the Chancery Division. According to the judiciary, it is for financial disputes of over £50m or equivalent, or those that need particular market expertise or raise issues of general market importance. Proceedings are issued in the Commercial Court or Chancery Division and allocated to the list. It also runs a Financial Markets Test Case Scheme for market-wide questions where immediate guidance on English law is needed.
03Should my business use the Financial Ombudsman Service or go to court?
If your business is eligible, the ombudsman is free and can decide what is fair and reasonable, not only what the contract strictly allows. Its awards are capped, however, and accepting a final decision usually prevents you from suing on the same complaint. For larger losses, complex documents or claims where interim relief is needed, court may be better. The decision depends on value, evidence, eligibility and limitation, so take advice before referring a complaint.
04My lender has sent a reservation of rights letter. What does that mean?
It is the lender's way of saying it believes a default may have occurred but is not yet acting on it, and that continuing to lend or deal with you is not a waiver. It is often a prelude to negotiation, a waiver request or enforcement. You should check whether a default has occurred, what cure rights you have, and what information covenants require. Respond carefully and avoid admissions. An early, well-structured approach often produces a waiver or amendment on acceptable terms.
05Can I recover money from my bank after an authorised push payment fraud?
Following Philipp v Barclays, a bank generally has no duty to refuse a customer's own clear instruction to pay, even if the customer was deceived. The main routes are now the mandatory reimbursement rules for eligible payments, complaints to the bank and the ombudsman, and claims against the recipients and any receiving bank. For businesses outside the reimbursement rules, quick action to trace and freeze funds is critical. We can advise on tracing, disclosure orders and claims against those who received the money.
06What happened in the motor finance cases?
In 2025 the Supreme Court decided appeals about commission paid by lenders to car dealers. It rejected the wider fiduciary and bribery analysis the Court of Appeal had adopted, but upheld a finding that one customer's credit relationship was unfair under section 140A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974. In March 2026 the FCA published final rules for two consumer redress schemes covering different periods. Lenders and brokers need advice on scheme obligations and any remaining litigation.
07How long do banking disputes take to resolve?
It varies widely. A clear debt claim against a borrower or guarantor can sometimes be resolved through summary judgment within months of issue. Contested mis-selling, derivatives or fraud claims with extensive disclosure and expert evidence commonly take well over a year to reach trial, and many settle before then. Interim applications such as freezing injunctions can be heard within days. We give a realistic timetable at the outset and revisit it at each stage of the case.
Sources and official materials
- Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, section 138D — Private person actions for breach of FCA rules
- Consumer Credit Act 1974, section 140A — Unfair relationships between creditors and debtors
- Work of the Financial List — Eligibility and the Financial Markets Test Case Scheme
- Philipp v Barclays Bank UK plc [2023] UKSC 25 — Supreme Court on the Quincecare duty and APP fraud
- Hopcraft v Close Brothers; Johnson v FirstRand [2025] UKSC 33 — Supreme Court on motor finance commission
- FCA PS26/3: Motor Finance Consumer Redress Scheme — Final rules for the motor finance redress schemes
- First Tower Trustees Ltd v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 — Non-reliance clauses and the reasonableness test
General information only, current as at 21 October 2026. It is not legal advice and does not create a solicitor–client relationship. It reflects the law of England and Wales unless stated otherwise; Scotland and Northern Ireland have separate legal systems, and the law changes frequently. Check current official sources and take advice on the facts of your matter.