Administrative and Public LawBanking and Financial Markets LitigationCivil Fraud, Asset Tracing and RecoveryCommercial LitigationCompetition LawConstruction and Engineering DisputesContentious Trusts, Estates and Private Wealth DisputesGroup Action LitigationInsolvency LitigationInsurance and Reinsurance LitigationInternational ArbitrationInvestigations and White Collar CrimeProduct LiabilityProfessional Negligence LitigationToxic Tort and ESG
Founded in 2012, Signature Litigation has grown into one of London’s pre-eminent specialist dispute resolution practices. From the outset, we set out to do things differently: a conflict-free, disputes-only platform designed to give clients the undivided focus and strategic agility that complex, high-stakes matters demand.
FIND OUT MORE
Established in 2017, Signature Litigation's Gibraltar office was founded to address growing demand for specialist expertise in commercial litigation and private wealth disputes on the Rock.
FIND OUT MORE
Signature Litigation AARPI houses one of France’s most enviable product liability practices, with the team also handling commercial and corporate litigation, insurance and reinsurance, toxic tort and ESG, civil fraud and asset tracing, international arbitration, administrative and public law.
FIND OUT MORE
Frankfurt has emerged as one of Europe's foremost financial and commercial centres and, increasingly, as a bridge between European and Asian markets. With that growth comes an increasing demand for sophisticated dispute resolution. Signature Litigation established its Frankfurt office to meet this need, bringing our conflict-free, disputes-only platform to the German market.
FIND OUT MOREPartner Simon Fawell has been interviewed by Law360 on the continued significance of the Supreme Court decision in Philipp v. Barclays for victims of APP fraud seeking redress, a year on from the landmark judgment handed down in July 2023. Simon's comments were published in Law360 on 19 July 2024, and can be found here.
In July 2023, it was confirmed by a Supreme Court decision that Quincecare duty does not extend to individual customers who are defrauded in the case of sending money to another bank account, including those who are victims of authorised push payment (APP) fraud. However the decision did not exclude customers from bringing a suit against their bank.
Partner Simon Fawell commented on the recent case brought by study support company CCP Graduate School Ltd. alleging that their bank, NatWest, should be liable for payments it was tricked into making, as if the bank had reacted more quickly, more of the money could have been recovered.
Discussing the argument brought by CCP, Simon noted: "That's going to require an analysis of two things. First, what would practically have happened had they taken the steps requested, which, depending on where the cash has been transferred, potentially brings into question banking practices in other jurisdictions, because of course, it depends what the next bank down the chain will do."
Simon also questioned: "How slow is too slow?" for action to be taken against a bank.
He added: "It will depend in each case on what the request is. There will also be the need for comparison with what other banks in those circumstances could reasonably be expected to have done."
