Bank

The Chancery Division considered the admissibility of expert evidence in a claim brought against the defendant, alleging breach of contract, negligence and/or misrepresentation in respect of advice, recommendations, explanations and/or information provided by the bank in connection with certain interest rate derivative products. The court held that, notwithstanding the complex nature of the products concerned, which could be described to the judge in a factual way, and thus not requiring permission, it was not actually necessary, on any of the issues in the present case, for there to be expert evidence.