UK: “Salesman’s Opinion” Does Not Create Duty: JP Morgan Chase V Springwell Navigation Corp

Last Updated: 26 June 2008
Article by Tim Strong and Ivan Wilkinson

Following the Court of Appeal's ruling last year in IFE v Goldman Sachs, Gloster J's detailed recent judgment in JP Morgan Chase Bank v Springwell Navigation Corporation [2008] EWHC 1186 (Comm) has affirmed the principle of caveat emptor in the capital markets. The ruling indicates that "experienced investors" in the bond markets will face an uphill battle if they wish to argue that banks - via their salesmen - owe them any advisory duty or responsibility for investment decisions, where this would be inconsistent with the disclaimers and other terms expressly set out in the deal documentation.


Springwell Navigation Corporation was the investment vehicle of the Polemis family, the owner of a large Greek shipping fleet. During the 1990s, Springwell invested heavily in emerging markets bonds and related instruments. The investments, whose face value exceeded US$700 million, were acquired through JP Morgan Chase ("Chase").

Much of the portfolio was invested in Russia and other CIS states and, following the 1998 Russian default, heavy losses were incurred. Proceedings seeking a declaration of no liability were commenced by Chase in 2001, with Springwell counterclaiming damages soon after - and hence becoming the effective claimant.

Springwell made a wide range of claims against Chase. Its primary claims, based on either breach of contract or negligent misstatement, were based on the contention that Chase owed Springwell a duty of care to advise on the overall balance of Springwell's portfolio and the suitability of new investments. This alleged advisory relationship was said to have arisen out of the regular discussions about potential investments which had taken place in 1990- 1998 between Adamandios Polemis ("AP"), who was responsible for investment decisions at Springwell, and Justin Atkinson ("JA"), a debt security trader at Chase. In the alternative, Springwell also claimed against Chase for misrepresentation and breach of fiduciary duty.

In its defence Chase relied, amongst other things, on the numerous disclaimers and limitations of liability contained in the contractual documentation relating to the transactions, including: a Master Forward Agreement, a Global Master Repurchase Agreement, two letters setting out terms for "Dealings in Developing Countries Securities", and also the terms of many of the instruments themselves, along with various associated term sheets and confirms.

Breach of contract/negligent misstatement

Springwell claimed that Chase owed contractual and tortious duties to advise it as to the appropriateness of investments and the overall composition of its portfolio. Springwell claimed that the opinions and recommendations expressed by JA to AP between 1990 and 1998 constituted ongoing financial advice from Chase, giving rise to a duty of care in contract or tort. Chase denied this, saying that any of Mr Atkinson's "recommendations" merely constituted marketing, which did not therefore give rise to any such duty.

It was clear on the evidence that the relationship between Chase and Springwell extended beyond a simple "execution only" relationship. JA and AP had had regular discussions about the merits of various investment products, and JA had clearly had an influence on Springwell's general overall investment strategy.

Mrs Justice Gloster accepted that JA was going beyond simple "execution only" transactions, and that this may have given rise to a low level duty of care (essentially requiring the accurate description of products). However, any such duty did not extend to providing "investment advice" entailing responsibility either for the selection of particular investments, or for monitoring the composition of the portfolio as a whole. In line with earlier authorities in this area1, she described the following as the significant factors against the finding of that wider duty of care:

  • Sophistication of Springwell. Although Springwell (as represented by AP) knew significantly less about the capital markets than Chase, and although AP did not always read contractual documentation before signing it, Springwell was nonetheless a sophisticated investor with commercial acumen and with significant experience in capital market investments.

  • None of the signs of an advisory relationship were present. There was no written agreement, which was not conclusive, but was a strong pointer against the existence of a duty (particularly given that Chase's, and the market's, standard practice was to record contractual relationships in written documents). Nor were there any telephone recordings or internal memoranda making reference to the existence of an advisory agreement, or any analyses of Springwell's investment objectives or portfolio statements (as one would have expected if there had been an advisory agreement).

  • Independence of Springwell's investment decisions. Although JA's recommendations and opinions had influenced AP, that latter did not always follow JA's recommendations and, in the final analysis, the judge found, it was AP's desire for high returns which drove the investments. Furthermore, the advice provided by a salesman, even if relied upon, did not create an investment advisory relationship with an associated duty of care.

  • The existence of a duty of care to advise was in any case clearly ruled out by the various disclaimers in the contractual documentation between the parties, and in particular by Springwell's acknowledgement that it had placed no reliance on any advice/representations from Chase in its decision to invest. As a result, Springwell would have been contractually precluded from claiming for losses based on its investment decisions, even if a prima_facie duty of care had otherwise been made out. Having contractually defined the scope of its relationship with Chase, Springwell was not entitled to make a claim in tort which went beyond the ambit of those contractual terms.

The judge gave short shrift to the various arguments that the bank should not be entitled to rely on its written disclaimers of liability. She rejected the challenges to their "reasonableness", under UCTA 1977, for two reasons. First and foremost, in line with the Court of Appeal's ruling last year in IFE v Goldman Sachs2 , she held that most of the relevant clauses were merely clauses defining the extent of the parties' relationship, rather than exclusion clauses, so did not fall within the ambit of UCTA (or, as regards misrepresentations, the Misrepresentation Act 1967). Second, to the extent that there were any residual disclaimers or exclusion clauses falling within the ambit of the statutory provisions, the judge held that they could not be construed as unreasonable given the commercial context and the fact that the parties were of equal bargaining power.

Springwell had also attempted to argue3 that it should not be bound by the various disclaimer wording, as its effect had not been clearly drawn to Springwell's attention. The judge, however, commented that this principle must have "a very limited application to signed contracts between commercial parties operating in the financial markets" and certainly did not apply in the present case - given that the relevant disclaimers were standard for the transactions in question, and did no more than to confirm that Chase did not have an advisory relationship and would not be responsible for Springwell's investment decisions.


Springwell claimed that Chase/JA had made a number of misrepresentations in relation to the suitability of various investment products and particularly misrepresentations about the Russian market.

The judge dismissed all of the misrepresentation claims. Again, this was in essence because of the effectiveness of the various contractual disclaimers, the result of which was that Chase had not made any actionable representations at all. Furthermore, Springwell also expressly confirmed in the contractual provisions that they were not relying on any representations and made the decision to invest independently. The judge concluded that JA's statements were a "salesman's opinion" and that no reasonable person would have placed reliance on these statements in the light of the contractual provisions. Springwell were therefore contractually precluded from bringing any claim for misrepresentation.

Breach of fiduciary duty

Springwell also claimed that Chase were in breach of their fiduciary duties by acting in their own interests, to the detriment of Springwell's interests, by taking advantage of AP's lack of expertise in order to offload unwanted bonds and also by failing to seek consent or failing to disclose the excessive profits they received.

All of these grounds were rejected by the judge - she held that, as it had been established that there was no advisory relationship, it followed that there were no fiduciary duties. In any event, she held that the investment proposals were consistent with Springwell's investment objectives and attitude to risk.

Other issues

In the light of the above, the judge did not strictly have to make any rulings on breach, causation, quantum, or contributory negligence. She did, however, make some interesting indicative rulings on these further areas. For example, she said that even if Springwell had been successful, its claim would have been reduced by up to 70 per cent for contributory negligence for an inappropriate reliance on an implied agreement. This was because it would be an abdication of Springwell's own responsibilities to expect a full advisory service but never to have agreed or confirmed the terms of that service, never to have clearly explained its investment objectives, and never to have raised any concern about the investments acquired.


Yet again this decision shows the UK courts' reticence to interfere with the express terms of capital markets contracts. It therefore illustrates the prime importance, for participants, of ensuring that the contractual documentation reflects the reality of the perceived commercial relationship - and in particular that well-drafted clauses can be effective in limiting the extent of a bank's relationship with investors, and disclaiming responsibility for the latter's investment decisions.

Perhaps most significantly, this ruling demonstrates that investors who sign up to capital markets activity as "sophisticated investors", on arm's length terms, will be treated by the courts as responsible for their own investment decisions - even if in practice they have much less knowledge and expertise than the banks with which they do business. If this is not the relationship they want with their bankers, they will have to ensure, if they can, that the parameters of any wider advisory relationship or investment mandate are clearly and expressly agreed in writing.

Having said that, every case of course turns on its own facts, and even this judgment - which appears to represent somewhat of a "high water mark" for banks' defence arguments - leaves open the possibility of successful claims being brought by investors in different circumstances, for example where particular products have been misdescribed by salesmen and where the facts might lead to a different view being taken on the enforceability of any applicable disclaimers. This ruling is therefore unlikely to be the last word on claims of this type.


1 For example Valse Holdings v Merrill Lynch International Bank [2004] EWHC 2471, and Bankers Trust International PLC v PT Dharmala Sakti Sejahtera [1996] CLC 518.

2 [2007] EWCA Civ 811.

3 Following Interfoto v Stiletto [1989] 1 QB 433.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions