CMC Spreadbet PLC v Robert Tchenguiz: Daniel Saoul KC and Ben Smiley succeed in substantial financial services dispute

News & Judgments
4 July 2022

On 1 July 2022 the High Court handed down its trial Judgment in the case of CMC Spreadbet PLC v Robert Tchenguiz, a decision concerning compliance by financial services providers with the FCA’s Conduct of Business Rules and the circumstances in which they can close out customers’ accounts. The High Court found in favour of the Claimant, CMC Spreadbet PLC (“CMC”) on all issues. CMC was represented by Daniel Saoul KC and Ben Smiley of 4 New Square Chambers, instructed by DAC Beachcroft.

In summary, Mr Tchenguiz opened a spreadbetting account with CMC, electing to be treated as a “professional client” within the meaning of the FCA’s Conduct of Business Rules, which entitled him to operate his account at a deficit, subject to CMC being entitled, for its part, to call in that debt, in accordance with the agreed contractual terms and conditions. Mr Tchenguiz subsequently traded on his account, opening substantial spreadbet positions in relation to the shares of First Group PLC. However, the market moved against him as the COVID pandemic hit European shores, the share price fell and his account was left with a substantial negative balance. CMC requested that Mr Tchenguiz make good the deficit on his account (a margin call) but Mr Tchenguiz failed to do so. In the circumstances, and faced with continuing uncertainty in the markets and the risk of further losses on Mr Tchenguiz’ account, CMC then closed out the positions, in accordance with its terms and conditions, and again asked Mr Tchenguiz to settle the debt due on his account. Mr Tchenguiz again failed to do so.

CMC therefore issued proceedings to recover the sums due. Mr Tchenguiz contended, in response, that CMC had failed in its obligations under the FCA’s Conduct of Business Rules, asserting a variety of alleged breaches, and that he should never have been categorised as a professional client, and so should never have been permitted to incur a debt on his account (as opposed to losing only the funds he had invested, as a retail client would). Further, Mr Tchenguiz asserted that CMC should not have closed out the positions at the time, or in the manner, that it did, and pursued a counterclaim on this basis. The case therefore raised issues relating to the nature and range of a regulated entity’s obligations under the FCA’s Rules, the consequences of alleged non-compliance, and as to a financial services provider’s right to close out positions in these circumstances, including whether (and if so how) such a right is qualified by reference to implied terms, including the Braganza duty.

Following a full trial, the High Court (Mr David Elvin KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) decided all of the issues in CMC’s favour, rejecting Mr Tchenguiz’ arguments. The Judge found that CMC had fully complied with its regulatory obligations and was entitled to close out the positions as it had done. CMC’s claim succeeded in full.

A full copy of the Judgment can be found here

Related People

Daniel Saoul KC

Call: 2008 Silk: 2019

Ben Smiley

Call: 2009



Popular resources

Four Fundamentals of Limitation Periods in Contract and Tort Claims

By Carl Troman, Barrister and Mediator at 4 New Square Four key points…

Discover more

Stay of proceedings before serving a claim form

What should claimants do when limitation is about to expire? Noting…

Discover more

Why are there so many cases against lawyers for contempt of court?

There has been a spate of cases in the past couple of…

Discover more

If you would like to know more or have a question please talk to our clerks

Portfolio Builder

Select the expertise that you would like to download or add to the portfolio

Download    Add to portfolio   
Title Type CV Email

Remove All


Click here to share this shortlist.
(It will expire after 30 days.)