The High Court ruled that an investor had a contract for investment management services with Barclays Bank plc, rather than Barclays Bank Ireland plc, which was the defendant in the proceedings. The decision concerned a preliminary application on the identity of the proper defendant; it did not determine the investor’s claims about alleged losses or the quality of advice.
The plaintiff’s action seeks damages for alleged negligence, breach of duty, misrepresentation and negligent misstatement in connection with investment losses. The parties agreed that the defendant question depended on whether he had contracted with Barclays Bank Ireland for the investment service at issue. The application was heard on affidavit, so the court could not resolve contested factual issues through oral evidence.
The plaintiff said he understood that his wealth management arrangements were with Barclays Ireland. The bank argued that its contract with him did not cover investment management, which it said was provided by its UK parent, with the Irish bank acting as agent.
Justice Iseult O’Malley reviewed the documents signed by the plaintiff. In January 2008, he signed Barclays Wealth forms for core services and discretionary investment management. In April, he signed another application selecting non-discretionary investment management, though he disputed when and how that form was completed. The forms incorporated Barclays Wealth terms that referred to Barclays Bank plc and not Barclays Bank Ireland.
A separate client agreement with Barclays Ireland, signed on 28 April 2008, covered services selected under that agreement. But its clause 4.5 excluded assets covered by another agreement with a group company for services including discretionary and non-discretionary portfolio management. The court also considered a letter stating that the plaintiff would need to become a Barclays Ireland client if he wanted his private banker to continue providing advice locally, and Irish terms of business stating that investment products were provided by or through Barclays group companies.
The judge said the agency agreement between the banks was not decisive because it had not featured in their dealings with the plaintiff. She concluded that the signed contractual documents showed that the investment management arrangement had not been transferred to Barclays Ireland. The ruling determined that the plaintiff had contracted with Barclays Bank plc for investment management and did not have such a contract with Barclays Bank Ireland in these proceedings.