The High Court has considered whether a lender owed a borrower either a contractual or tortious duty to advise it in respect of onerous terms in a loan agreement.  In the case being heard, the lender did not advise the borrower that it would be liable for potentially significant hedging break costs incurred by the lender if it prepaid the fixed rate loan made to it. The claimants contended that the lender had a duty to advise the borrower because of their close and because the lender; that the lender was not simply a source of finance but was also a "trusted advisor".  It was found that the lender had no contractual duty to advise the borrower about the terms of the loan agreement and nor did it have a duty of care, adding that the circumstances in which such a duty could arise "would have to be exceptional and markedly different from the conventional relationship of banker and customer", particularly when, as was the case here, the borrower was represented by a broker and solicitors.