House of Lords rules on Bank of England immunity in respect of BCCI supervision Three Rivers District Council and others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England
| Date | 01 April 2000 |
| Pages | 359-364 |
| Published date | 01 April 2000 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025057 |
| Author | Steyn LJ,Hutton LJ,Millet LJ,Joanna Gray |
| Subject Matter | Accounting & finance |
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 8 Number 4
Regulatory and legal commentary
House of Lords rules on Bank of England
immunity in respect of BCCI supervision
Three Rivers District Council and others v
Governor and Company of the Bank of
England
Steyn LJ, Hope of Craighead LJ, Hutton LJ, Hobhouse of Woodborough LJ,
Millett LJ
Judgment date: 18th May, 2000
Joanna Gray
Consultant, Dundas & Wilson CS (Andersen Legal), Edinburgh; tel: +44 (0)777 365 9485; e-mail:
joanna@alwinton.fsnet.co.uk
FACTS
The factual background to this House of
Lords decision lies in the 1991 collapse of
the Bank of Credit and Commerce Inter-
national (BCCI) Banking Group. The
Appellants (who were the Appellants in the
House of Lords) were depositors who had
lost monies in the collapse of BCCI. BCCI
itself was named as a Plaintiff since it was
an assignee of the claims of Plaintiff deposi-
tors.
The Plaintiffs (who were the Appel-
lants in this appeal and are hereafter
referred to as such) made a very large
number of allegations against the Bank of
England (the Bank) with regard to its exer-
cise of its powers and discretions under the
statutory scheme of Banking Supervision
contained in the Banking Acts of 1979 and
1987.
These allegations related to (inter alia)
the Bank's decision to grant a full licence
to BCCI in 1980, its failure subsequently to
revoke that licence and various other acts
and omissions in its supervisory role up to
BCCI's collapse in 1991.
THE ACTION
There were two alleged causes of action in
this litigation, both of which formed the
basis of the appeal to the House of Lords.
The first cause of action alleged by the
Appellants was misfeasance in public office.
They argued that named senior officials of
the Banking Supervision Department of
the Bank of England had acted in bad faith
inasmuch as they had, in 1980, licensed
BCCI to conduct deposit-taking business
under the Banking Act of 1979 (which
enacted the First Council Banking Co-
ordination Directive 77/780/EEC). The
Appellants argued that when this deposit-
taking licence was granted the officials
knew that it was unlawful so to do. The
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 8, No. 4,
2000,
pp. 359-364
© Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 359
To continue reading
Request your trial