The factual background to this House of Lords decision lies in the 1991 collapse of the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (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 depositors. The Plaintiffs (who were the Appellants 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 exercise 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.
LJ, S., LJ, H., LJ, M. and Gray, J. (2000), "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", Journal of Financial Regulation and Compliance, Vol. 8 No. 4, pp. 359-364. https://doi.org/10.1108/eb025057
MCB UP Ltd
Copyright © 2000, MCB UP Limited