Rupal has over 11 years' experience and has regularly acted for financial institutions, including payment service providers, lenders and a range of leading UK banks, focusing on large scale complex litigation and remediation projects. 

She has impressive experience in managing and supervising teams both in relation to volume litigation and confidential investigations.

She has primarily focused on alleged negligent investment advice claims, and also has a particular focus on financial crime, data protection and fraud claims. She has also advised in relation to possession claims, Consumer Credit Act claims, asset and sales finance, debt, breach of contract claims and enforcement of judgments.

Rupal has also completed two successful six-month secondments to two major banks. The first, to the bank's retail and business banking team, and the second to the bank's in-house litigation team.

Jurisdiction: England & Wales


  • Acting for the bank in Fiona Lorraine Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2021] EWHC 10 (Comm) in relation to an authorised push payment fraud claim. The court found that the Quincecare duty did not extend to a payment transfer intentionally authorised by the customer.
  • Acting for the bank in Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Anor v Barclays Bank PLC [2021] EWHC 772 (Comm) in relation to a third claim by the Claimants against the bank which the Deputy Judge concluded was barred by res judicata and in any event would have been caught by the Henderson v Henderson principle.
  • Acting for the bank in Simer Kaur Dhillon v (1) Barclays Bank PLC (2) Chief Land Registrar [2020] EWCA Civ 619. The court of appeal unanimously found that, notwithstanding two fraudulent transfers, the claimant was not entitled to rectification of the Land Register so as to remove the bank's charge.
  • Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Anor v Barclays Bank PLC [2017] EWHC 2030 (QB) and [2019] EWCA Civ 204. Successfully opposing an amendment application that sought to include serious claims for unlawful interference, unlawful means conspiracy and conspiracy to injure. The appeal was dismissed.
  • Acting for a retail bank in a confidential investigation involving the review of, and reporting on, large volumes of documents and data, looking at banking charges applied to retail categorised customers over a defined period. Advising a lender client in relation to a large portfolio of claims brought under s75 of the Consumer Credit Act in relation to the alleged missale of domestic products. 



View all