Call: 2006
Ruth specialises in financial services, retail banking/regulated lending and insurance regulation.
Ruth is ranked in the ‘Legal 500’ directory in Tier 1 for Financial Services and Fintech Regulation and Tier 2 for Banking & Finance. She is ranked in Chambers & Partners in Tier 1 for Consumer Finance.
Ruth has represented banks and finance institutions in a number of the leading cases in the area. She was recently junior counsel for Barclays in its judicial review of FOS’ decision-making on motor commission. She is currently sole/lead counsel in three Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) cases concerning alleged mis-sale of financial products (bonds, defined benefit pension transfers and bridging loans). She is sole counsel in a High Court judicial review of FOS for a financial adviser firm.
She was lead counsel for the creditor in Kerrigan & 11 ors v Elevate Credit International Limited (t/a Sunny) (in administration) [2020] EWHC 2169 (Comm); [2020] C.T.L.C. 161, the payday lending test case litigation on the relationship between the FCA’s Handbook rules and the ‘unfair relationship’ provisions.
Earlier in her career, Ruth mounted a successful defence of undisclosed PPI commission in the seminal case of Harrison v Black Horse Ltd (see below), subsequently overruled by the Supreme Court in Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2014] 1 W.L.R. 4222, and appeared in Conlon v Black Horse Ltd (see below, settled three days before the hearing in the Supreme Court).
Ruth gives corporate entities in-depth advice on financial regulatory compliance. She is an expert on the detailed rules governing regulated activities in the FCA Handbook, including investment business, credit/mortgage lending and insurance regulation. She also advises on payment services and collective investment schemes.
Ruth is a Director of the Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund Ltd, the professional indemnity insurer for the Bar. She also sits on the Regulatory Panel of Lincoln’s Inn.
Ruth has represented banks and finance institutions in a number of the leading cases in the area.
R (Wills & Trust Independent Financial Planning Ltd) v FOS [2026] EWHC 1566 (Admin): Ruth represented the partially successful claimant in a judicial review of a FOS decision. The FOS’ decision on quantum was found to be irrational because it depended on performance of the portfolio after the complainants had moved it to a third party financial adviser. The FOS’ discretion on redress is not unlimited; the word “compensation” in FSMA s229(2) meant the redress should be related to the failures found by the Ombudsman. The Court also considered the scope of a “complaint”. Judgment summary available here.
R (Clydesdale Financial Services Ltd t/a Barclays Partner Finance) v Financial Ombudsman Service Ltd [2024] EWHC 3237 (High Court judgment; appeal to CA withdrawn shortly before hearing): Junior counsel for Barclays (led by Ben Jaffey K.C. and with Marlena Valles of Blackstone) in the judicial review of FOS’ decision-making on motor commission complaints involving the payment of ‘discretionary’ commission linked to the interest rate negotiated by the dealer. Issues included (i) whether FOS erred in construing CONC 4.5.3 R to require disclosure of the commission model, when it only required disclosure of the “existence” of commission, prior to an amendment inserting the words “and nature” and (ii) whether FOS was irrational to award redress on the basis that the discretionary commission would have been negotiated to zero.
Mr Y & ors v FCA, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery): representing a former employee of SVS Securities plc as lead counsel in a challenge to the FCA’s decision to issue a prohibition order and a fine following his firm’s involvement in investing over £69m of customer funds into ‘illiquid’ bonds in model portfolios. Issues include the legitimacy of profit generated by SVS by purchasing investments from disinvesting investors on behalf of the remaining investors, and the relevance of there being no alleged breach of COBS by the FCA in this regard.
Mr X & ors v FCA, Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery): representing a former partner of St Martin’s Partners in a challenge to the FCA’s decision to issue a full prohibition order and a fine following his firm’s involvement in advising on defined benefit pension transfers. The FSCS has paid over £13.4m to the firm’s clients. Issues include the extent to which a partner can rely upon a separate compliance function and the relevance of defined benefit schemes not falling within the FCA’s definition of a “designated investment” at the time, meaning that COBS chapter 9 was inapplicable to the firm. There is also a dispute about the extent to which the FCA is entitled to impose regulatory sanctions for conduct that would only have amounted to a breach of COBS following subsequent amendments.
Property Alternative Holdings (in administration) (High Court): acting for the administrators in a series of FSMA applications arising from a fractional ownership scheme involving care homes (led by insolvency silk Eleanor Temple K.C.)
Nash v Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd [2023] EWHC 2326 (KB): Ruth successfully represented Volkswagen FS in a defective vehicle dispute; the appeal concerned the correct approach to factual causation where there were competing theories- See news post.
Kerrigan & 11 ors v Elevate Credit International Limited (t/a Sunny) (in administration) [2020] EWHC 2169 (Comm); [2020] C.T.L.C. 161: Ruth was lead counsel for the creditor in this payday lending test case litigation on the relationship between the FCA’s Handbook rules and the ‘unfair relationship’ provisions. Twelve ‘Sample Cases’ were tried over the course of four weeks. Summary of judgment here.
MFS Portfolio Ltd v Phelan [2019] GCCR 17149: four day appeal upholding the applicability of the exemption in paragraph 55 of the Schedule to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Exemption) Order 2001. This exemption from the need for FCA authorisation is commonly relied upon by debt purchasers who enter servicing arrangements with authorised servicers. The borrowers unsuccessfully argued that debt purchasers are not entitled to rely on this exemption when issuing proceedings: issuing is an activity that cannot be delegated to the servicer, but has to be undertaken by the purchaser, who has title to the debt.
Pyne & ors v Curo Transatlantic Ltd t/a Wageday Advance (unrep, High Court, Business and Property Courts in Birmingham, 30 November 2018): represented a payday lender in a group of 231 claims alleging payday loan ‘mis-selling’. Applied for a ‘Scheme Stay’ so that the claims could be processed by the lender as complaints and thereafter referred to the Financial Ombudsman Service.
Conlon v Black Horse Ltd UKSC 2014/0038: conjoined appeal with Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Limited [2014] 1 W.L.R. 4222; settled three days before hearing in the Supreme Court.
Conlon v Black Horse Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1658: Ruth was led by David Bailey QC in having the borrower’s appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal declined to distinguish Harrison v Black Horse Ltd on the grounds there was oral evidence from the borrower as to how she would have reacted had she known of the commission and evidence of the bank’s motivation in deciding not to disclose.
Conlon v Black Horse Ltd [2012] GCCR 11423: Ruth successfully represented appellant in High Court, appearing as sole counsel against Hodge Malek QC; appeal allowed against a trial judge’s finding of an ‘unfair relationship’.
Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2011] EWCA Civ 1128; [2012] Lloyd’s Rep I.R. 521; [2011] C.T.L.C. 105: Led by Nicholas Elliott QC in the Court of Appeal, where the lender successfully resisted the borrowers’ second appeal: non-disclosure of 87% commission did not give rise to unfair relationship; if there was no non-compliance with ICOB it was difficult to see how there could be an ‘unfair relationship’; Appeal to Supreme Court compromised.
Harrison v Black Horse Ltd [2010] EWHC 3152 (QB); [2011] Lloyd’s Rep I.R. 455; [2011] C.T.L.C. 1: Ruth appeared as sole counsel in High Court: although PPI being recommended was very expensive by comparison with monthly premium products, this did not give rise to a breach of ICOB or an unfair relationship; receipt of 87% commission from insurer did not give rise to a conflict of interest under ICOB.
Ruth has advised e-platforms on whether they are undertaking insurance distribution, advised administrators of an insurance intermediary on the application of CASS, advised insurers on commissions and advised the Lloyds’ Market Association on interpretation and proposed reform of the FCA Handbook. She has drafted written representations to the FCA on matters of insurance regulation. She also sits as a non-executive director on the board of an insurer (Bar Mutual Indemnity Fund).
Dan Squires K.C., sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, has handed down judgment in…
We are proud to share that 7 members of 4 Pump Court have been highlighted…
The Pro Bono Recognition List has been published today which recognises solicitors and barristers who…
