DLA Piper

Is “name and shame” here to stay? Court dismisses challenge to FCA’s decision to publicly name

In this In Practice article the authors consider R (CIT (an anonymised company)) v Financial Conduct Authority (No.1) [2025] EWHC 2614 (Admin), and R (on the application of Claims Protection Agency Ltd) v Financial Conduct Authority (No. 2) [2025] EWHC 2615 (Admin) in which the High Court upheld the Financial Conduct Authority’s decision to name a regulated firm as the subject of an investigation.

Practical considerations for data protection and cybersecurity when deploying AI

The adoption of AI is accelerating across the UK financial services sector. Accordingly, institutions must navigate a complex landscape of regulatory expectations, technological risks and ethical responsibilities. The goal is to remain agile, while aligning with core compliance requirements.

Court of Appeal upholds established principles to reject novel claim for crypto growth losses

In BSV Claims v Bittylicious [2025] EWCA Civ 661, the English Court of Appeal handed down a significant judgment on quantifying losses in cryptocurrency claims. In this In Practice article the authors summarise the decision and provide some practical takeaways.

Merricks v Mastercard settlement: CAT clips litigation funders’ wings

In unwelcome news for litigation funders, the Competition Appeal Tribunal has ruled that a contested £200m settlement of an “opt-out” class action, once estimated to be worth £14bn, is just and reasonable.

Court of Appeal decision on Motor Finance: lenders’ secondary liabilities

There has been significany commentary following the Court of Appeal's decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank LTD [2024] EWCV Civ 1282 regarding liability for undisclosed motor finance commissions. This is not surprising given the unexpected nature of the decision, its impact on the motor finance industry, and potential to impact other industries which use intermediaries remunerated by commissions from product providers. The decision will be reviewed by the Supreme Court in April.
This In Practice article examines the Court of Appeal’s approach to the lenders’ secondary liability for a credit broker’s breach of fiduciary duty, which we consider is ripe for criticism by the Supreme Court.

A SIPP from the devil’s cup: Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions appeal

In this In Practice article, the authors consider the Court of Appeal decision in Adams v Options UK Personal Pensions¹ in which a regulated firm was found liable because its unregulated introducer “encouraged” clients to enter investments.

Operative and material? Ten years later: setting aside a judgment for fraud

In Balber Kaur Takhar v Gracefield Developments,¹ Steven Gasztowicz QC, sitting in the High Court as a deputy High Court judge, set aside a judgment issued ten years earlier on the basis it had been procured by fraud. The court considered the correct test to apply when setting aside a judgment for fraud – which ultimately turns on whether the fraud is operative and material.

Expectations of privacy for individuals under investigation

The appeal in ZXC v Bloomberg is expected to be heard by the Supreme Court later this year. The outcome of this appeal could diminish the expectation of privacy currently afforded to individuals under investigation by law enforcement agencies. With the law on corporate criminal liability under review by the Law Commission, and a growing appetite for claims against senior executives in the financial services sector, this is a case to watch. This piece provides a refresher on the rights currently conferred on suspects.

The Quincecare duty: 30 years on

In a sign of the times, the first quarter of this year has seen three cases on a bank’s duty to refrain from executing a payment instruction where it has reasonable grounds to suspect the transaction may be an attempt to misappropriate the account-holder’s funds. Until now, in the thirty years since it was first recognised, cases relating to the so-called Quincecare duty have been few and far between. This in itself indicates the narrow circumstances in which the courts have found the duty has not only been breached, but even arisen in the first place.

Section 32 Limitation Act: an evolving yet difficult route for claimants