Andrew Tuson

Andrew Tuson
  1. People /

Andrew Tuson

Andrew Tuson

Partner


London
Andrew Tuson
  1. People /

Andrew Tuson

Andrew Tuson

Partner


London

Andrew Tuson

Partner

London

T: +44 (0) 20 3400 4948

VcardVcard
Download PDFDownload PDF
Print
Share

Biography

Andrew acts for retail and investment banks, trading houses and corporate clients in investigations, court proceedings and cross-border regulatory enforcement actions concerning benchmarks, structured products, financial instruments, commodities, fraud and financial crime. He is experienced in cases of market abuse and market manipulation.

In 2013, Andrew spent seven months on secondment with the litigation and regulatory team of an investment bank.

Andrew is also a contributing author to the Association of Foreign Banks Update and Compliance & Risk Journal.

‘Andrew Tuson is a top tier legal adviser. Highly intelligent, strategic thinker, with a considered approach and razor sharp instincts. Financial Services litigation adviser of choice and highly recommended.’ – Legal 500 2023

‘Andrew Tuson is a recognised expert in the field of banking regulation. his approachable and attentive style coupled with robust knowledge and expertise attributes to the efficient problem-solving and effective resolution.‘ – Legal 500 2022

‘Andrew Tuson (partner): an outstanding solicitor, extremely clever, commercially highly astute, superb at client handling, a great tactician, and a delight to work with.‘ - Legal 500 2022

 

The Growth of Class Actions: What’s next?

Admissions

  • England and Wales

Related Practice Areas

  • Anti-Money Laundering Compliance

  • ESG Governance, Compliance & Reporting

  • ESG Litigation

  • Financial Institutions

  • Business & Commercial Disputes

  • Banking & Finance Disputes

  • Anti-Bribery & Corruption

  • Finance

  • Investigations

  • Litigation & Dispute Resolution

  • Regulation, Compliance & Advisory

  • Crypto and Digital Assets

Related Insights

Insights
Aug 20, 2024

Mandatory reimbursement for APP fraud

What payment service providers need to consider ahead of implementation
Insights
Jul 13, 2023

Supreme Court narrows the scope of the Quincecare duty in Philipp v Barclays Bank

We are defending financial institutions from multiple claims for breach of the so called Quincecare duty and have seen claimant law firms increasingly seek to expand the scope of the duty to try to make financial institutions liable for any frauds taking place through their accounts. Where a bank is unknowingly or innocently “mixed up” in a fraud as a result of duly complying with the customer’s instructions (who are not themselves complicit in or aware of the fraud), the question is in what circumstances should the bank be held liable for any loss suffered on the basis of its purported greater ability to detect fraud. The answer to this question, eagerly awaited by many, has finally come from the Supreme Court in its judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25.

Related Insights

Awards
Oct 17, 2024
Chambers 2025 UK guide ranks BCLP in 34 practice areas and recognises 74 individual lawyers
News
Oct 02, 2024
The Legal 500 UK ranks BCLP in 52 practice areas and recognizes 69 lawyers as “leading individuals”
Insights
Aug 20, 2024
Mandatory reimbursement for APP fraud
What payment service providers need to consider ahead of implementation
Insights
Jan 18, 2024
How scam-proof are you in the new world of mandatory reimbursement for APP fraud?
News
Oct 19, 2023
Chambers UK Ranks BCLP in 41 practice areas and recognizes 74 lawyers
Awards
Oct 04, 2023
The Legal 500 UK ranks BCLP in 54 practice areas and recognizes 74 lawyers as “leading individuals”
Insights
Jul 13, 2023
Supreme Court narrows the scope of the Quincecare duty in Philipp v Barclays Bank
We are defending financial institutions from multiple claims for breach of the so called Quincecare duty and have seen claimant law firms increasingly seek to expand the scope of the duty to try to make financial institutions liable for any frauds taking place through their accounts. Where a bank is unknowingly or innocently “mixed up” in a fraud as a result of duly complying with the customer’s instructions (who are not themselves complicit in or aware of the fraud), the question is in what circumstances should the bank be held liable for any loss suffered on the basis of its purported greater ability to detect fraud. The answer to this question, eagerly awaited by many, has finally come from the Supreme Court in its judgment in Philipp v Barclays Bank UK PLC [2023] UKSC 25.
News
May 22, 2023
BCLP delivers 2023 senior managers development program for the Association of Foreign Banks (AFB)
Insights
Jan 19, 2023
Authorised Push Payment fraud – the return of the nanny state?