The High Court has dismissed Vieira Ltd.’s entire case against Ulster Bank over an interest rate swap, while allowing two parts of a related European Property Fund (EPF) case to proceed to evidence.
In a judgment delivered on 2 July 2015, Ms Justice Costello ruled on the bank’s applications to dismiss or strike out claims brought by Vieira and by EPF and Laurelmore Ltd. The claims concerned alleged mis-selling of financial products, including loans and interest rate swaps, and related losses. The court was deciding whether claims could continue, not determining the surviving allegations after a trial.
The judge dismissed all claims brought by Laurelmore. The company had transferred the relevant property and derivative obligations to EPF and had suffered no loss of its own, a point its counsel did not contest. The court held that any claim by Laurelmore for relief was bound to fail.
EPF’s claims over the loan facility, the Old Jewry derivative and its novation, and alleged misrepresentation, negligence, fiduciary breach, deceit and fraudulent concealment were dismissed. The judge found the claims were brought outside the six-year limitation period. She also concluded that the contractual documents disclosed the relevant terms and risks, and that EPF’s fraud and concealment claims were too vague and could not succeed on the facts and documents before her.
Two EPF claims were not struck out. EPF alleged that Ulster Bank coerced or intimidated it into selling Belgrave Road and Old Jewry. The bank denied wrongdoing. Justice Costello said whether the bank acted lawfully or improperly could only be decided after hearing oral evidence. She also allowed EPF’s claim that delay in closing out the loan facility and Old Jewry derivative caused greater losses to proceed, saying that issue likewise required oral evidence. These were not findings that the bank had coerced EPF or caused loss through delay.
Vieira alleged that the Positive Carry Swap had been mis-sold and that the bank had misrepresented its nature and suitability. The judge held that the contractual terms barred its claims other than fraud or fraudulent concealment, and that those remaining allegations could not succeed on the case presented. She dismissed the Vieira proceedings in full. The swap had expired at the end of its five-year term; the judge noted it had not been terminated by the bank and Vieira had not incurred break costs.
The judgment therefore left only the two specified EPF disputes for further proceedings; it dismissed the rest of the claims before the court.