High Court refuses to strike out lender's claim against law firm for tort of unlawful interference in respect of irresponsible lending claims they advanced on behalf of the lender's customers

The High Court has dismissed applications by a defendant law firm for strike out/summary judgment against a lender's claim alleging the tort of causing loss by unlawful means: Vanquis Bank Limited v TMS Legal Limited [2025] EWHC 1599 (KB).

By way of refresher, the tort of causing loss by unlawful means involves four essential elements: i) unlawful acts independently actionable by a third party; ii) interference with the actions of the third party; iii) intention to cause loss; and iv) actual loss.

In the present case, the law firm had submitted tens of thousands of irresponsible lending complaints to the lender and the Financial Ombudsman Service (FOS), allegedly without proper investigation and in breach of the law firm's obligations to its clients. The overwhelming majority of those complaints were ultimately rejected or withdrawn. However, the law firm's actions disrupted the lender's relationship with its customers and led to significant damage, including costs incurred in investigating complaints that should never have been brought, lost profit from customers whose accounts had been suspended and associated FOS fees. The lender brought proceedings against the law firm for the tort of causing loss by unlawful means. The law firm applied to strike out the lender’s claim and/or obtain summary judgment on the basis that one or more of the four essential elements of the tort of causing loss by unlawful means is not met and thus that the claim is legally untenable.

The court refused the applications, holding that the lender's claim was based on the application of well-established principles to a novel fact pattern. It found that each essential element of the tort of causing loss by unlawful means was met on the basis of the facts as alleged. The case will now proceed to trial, where the factual and legal issues will be examined in full.

The court's decision will be of interest to financial institutions as highlights the potential exposure of law firms operating high-volume complaint models to claims from third parties affected by their conduct. It confirms that the tort of causing loss by unlawful means is a flexible remedy capable of addressing novel forms of economic harm. While the court recognised that a claim of this sort had not been pursued previously, the court noted that this might be because it could only succeed on egregious facts and that, if the allegations were correct, it "would be an example of egregious conduct" by the law firm.

For more information, please see our Litigation blog post,

Note: In July 2025. the defendant applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. In December 2025, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal.