Property Alliance Group Ltd v Royal Bank of Scotland Plc

A claim may satisfy the definition of a Financial List claim without being transferred automatically. On a contested transfer application, the court must apply the relevant transfer rules and the overriding objective. It should assess the claim’s market significance, the importance of those issues, the existing judge’s involvement, the likely effect of changing judge, the stage reached, the proximity of trial, disruption to the timetable, and effects on other proceedings. Claims raising issues of general importance to financial markets warrant particular weight. A transfer may remain appropriate despite delay and loss of an experienced assigned judge where the case is suitable for specialist judicial expertise and the trial can proceed without disruption.

Property Alliance Group Ltd brought proceedings against Royal Bank of Scotland Plc concerning the alleged mis-selling of interest rate swaps, the transfer and management of its banking relationship by the Global Restructuring Group, and alleged manipulation of LIBOR. The claim was approximately £29 million, but the claimant accepted that it fell within the definition of a Financial List claim because it raised issues of general importance to the financial markets.

RBS applied to transfer the proceedings from the Chancery Division into the Financial List. The proceedings had already been managed by Birss J, who had delivered several interlocutory judgments, and trial was due to begin on 23 May 2016. The central issue was whether transfer remained appropriate despite the consequent change of judge.

1. Application granted. The proceedings were ordered to be transferred into the Financial List, with a judge to be assigned. The pre-trial review remained fixed for 7 or 8 April 2016 and the trial for 23 May 2016.

2. The court applied CPR 30.5, Practice Direction 63AA and the overriding objective. A claim falling within CPR 63A.1(2)(b) or (c), because it requires particular financial-market expertise or raises issues of general market importance, will ordinarily be suitable for the Financial List. Claims falling only within the wide subject-matter definition in CPR 63A.1(2)(a) will not necessarily require transfer.

3. Relevant considerations on a contested transfer included: the extent and importance of the market-significant issues; whether the case had already been assigned to a judge; whether transfer required a change of judge; the age and procedural stage of the proceedings; the assigned judge’s familiarity with the case; the resulting effect on pre-reading and trial efficiency; the proximity and disruption of the trial timetable; and disruption to other proceedings caused by assigning a new Financial List judge.

4. The swap and LIBOR allegations raised issues of general market significance likely to affect existing and future litigation. The proceedings could therefore provide a test or lead case, for which determination by a Financial List judge would give the judgment appropriate weight in the financial markets.

5. Although the application had been made later than desirable and transfer would deprive the case of Birss J’s familiarity, those disadvantages were outweighed by the market significance of the issues. Assurances that the trial would not be adjourned or disrupted, together with the availability of a replacement judge to conduct both the pre-trial review and trial, meant that transfer satisfied the applicable rules and the overriding objective.

Not stated in the judgment.