We use cookies to customise content for your subscription and for analytics.
If you continue to browse Lexology, we will assume that you are happy to receive all our cookies. For further information please read our Cookie Policy.

Search results

Order by: most recent most popular relevance



Results:1-6 of 6

One amendment, two amendment, three amendment and, erm, four? Court of Appeal refuses borrowers permission for another walk in the park
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • United Kingdom
  • September 6 2011

Courts have been faced with a substantial number of claims alleging the mis-selling of payment protection insurance


The race for the triple crown: horses, high stakes & PPI
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • United Kingdom
  • May 31 2011

Barack Obama's visit to the United Kingdom has caused much media speculation about our 'special relationship' with the United States of America.


No royal wedding in PPI litigation: Buckingham & Buckingham v Black Horse Limited
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • United Kingdom
  • February 22 2011

Mr Recorder Rees' important recent decision in Buckingham & Buckingham v Black Horse Limited (2011), Birmingham County Court, 3 February 2011, decided three issues that often arise in payment protection insurance litigation: firstly, whether the broker was the borrowers' agent and owed a fiduciary duty and, if so, whether it breached that duty by accepting a "secret commission"; secondly, whether the lender procured a breach of fiduciary duty; and thirdly, whether the lender misrepresented the policy.


Black Horse romps home with another victory in the High Court: Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited
  • Squire Patton Boggs
  • United Kingdom
  • December 7 2010

His Honour Judge Waksman QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court in the Manchester Mercantile Court, handed down judgment on 1 December 2010 in Harrison & Harrison v Black Horse Limited 2010 EWHC 3152 (QB) on three issues often argued in payment protection insurance litigation: firstly, whether the lender complied with the Insurance: Conduct of Business Rules ("ICOB"); secondly, whether the lender negligently sold a single premium payment protection insurance policy (the "Policy"); and thirdly, whether the sale of the Policy created an unfair relationship.


Russell Kelsall
  • Squire Patton Boggs