Three Rivers District Council and Others v Governor and Company of the Bank of England
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025016 |
| Pages | 274-280 |
| Published date | 01 March 1999 |
| Date | 01 March 1999 |
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance Volume 7 Number 3
Court of Appeal decision on the liability of
the Bank of England
Three Rivers District Council and Others v
Governor and Company of the
Bank of England
Court of Appeal, Civil Decision: Hirst LJ, Auld LJ and Robert Walker LJ
Date of Judgment: 4th December, 1998
FACTS
The factual background to this appeal was
set out in Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 70-72 of the
Journal of Financial Regulation and Compli-
ance and concerned the 1991 collapse of the
Bank of Credit and Commerce Interna-
tional (BCCI) banking group and the role
therein of the Bank of England, as UK
banking regulator and supervisor at the
time.
The Appellants in this appeal were
Plaintiffs (numbering some 6,000 persons)
in an action against the Bank of England
for damages based upon the tort of misfea-
sance in public office. The Plaintiffs were
depositors in the UK branches of Bank of
Credit and Commerce International who
had lost monies as a result of the BCCI
group's collapse, together with BCCI SA
(in liquidation) as equitable assignee of the
depositors' claims. This was an appeal from
an order of Clarke J made on 2 October,
1997 which struck out the Plaintiffs' claim
against the Bank of England and dismissed
the proceedings, on the basis that the essen-
tial elements of the tort of misfeasance in
public office were not present and thus the
claim was bound to fail.
THE ISSUES
The Appellants appealed to the Court of
Appeal requesting that Clarke J's Order of
2 October, 1997 be set aside and seeking
declarations in their favour on the follow-
ing legal issues, namely that:
(1) the Bank of England is capable of
being liable to the Plaintiffs for the tort
of misfeasance in public office
(2) the Bank is capable of being liable to
the Plaintiffs for breaches of EU law
(3) the Plaintiffs' alleged losses are capable
of being caused in law by the Bank's
acts or omissions.
DECISION
The Appellants' appeals were dismissed. A
joint judgment of some 170 pages was given
by Lord Justices Hirst and Robert Walker
which, as the majority of the Court, repre-
sented the decision of the Court of Appeal.
Lord Justice Auld, however, gave an inter-
esting dissenting judgment. This comment,
however, will focus on the reasoning deter-
minative of the majority decision of LJJ
Hirst and Walker and the phrase 'their
Lordships' as used herein is to be taken to
refer to that majority judgment.
Tort of misfeasance in public office
Their Lordships identified key points of
dispute surrounding misfeasance in public
office:
Journal of Financial Regulation
and Compliance, Vol. 7, No. 3,
1999,
pp 274-280
V) Henry Stewart Publications,
1358-1988
Page 274
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting