Barings Plc & Ors v Co Lybrand & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 148 (5 May 2000)

Barings Plc & Ors v Co Lybrand & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 148 (5 May 2000)

The transcripts were obtained under or for the purposes of the Banking Act 1987 and are subject to the statutory restriction on disclosure in s.82(1). However, if and to the extent that the transcripts were made available to the public in the course of court proceedings, the restriction is lost. The burden is on the party contesting public availability to show the documents did not enter the public domain.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 148
Parties
Appellant/defendant: Deloitte & Touche; Claimant: Barings PLC (in liquidation); Intervener: Financial Services Authority (FSA)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
05 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Evans Lombe Dated 15 December 1999
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on the first issue, allowed on the second issue.
Legal Topics
Disclosure of Information, Banking Act 1987 S.82, Public Domain in Litigation, Professional Negligence, Court Document Inspection

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deloitte & Touche

Appellant/defendant

Barings PLC (in liquidation)

Claimant

Financial Services Authority (FSA)

Intervener

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order of Mr Justice Evans Lombe Dated 15 December 1999

  1. 1 Whether transcripts of interviews from the BoBS investigation into Barings' collapse are subject to the disclosure restriction in Part V of the Banking Act 1987
  2. 2 Whether those transcripts had been made available to the public and thus ceased to be restricted under s.82(2)

Ratio Decidendi

The transcripts were obtained under or for the purposes of the Banking Act 1987 and are subject to the statutory restriction on disclosure in s.82(1). However, if and to the extent that the transcripts were made available to the public in the course of court proceedings, the restriction is lost. The burden is on the party contesting public availability to show the documents did not enter the public domain.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on the first issue, allowed on the second issue.

Orders

  • Order as agreed between counsel, no order as to costs.