Elliott Associates LP & Anor, R (on the application of) v The London Metal Exchange & Anor

Elliott Associates LP & Anor, R (on the application of) v The London Metal Exchange & Anor

The LME's decision to cancel the 8 March 2022 nickel trades was lawful, rational, and within its powers under TR 22 and the relevant regulatory framework. There was no procedural unfairness given the urgency and market context. Elliott's rights, even if qualifying as possessions under A1P1, were always subject to lawful cancellation and no unlawful interference occurred. Any interference was justified and proportionate given the risk of catastrophic market failure.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Elliott Associates L.P.; Appellant/claimant: Elliott International L.P.; Respondent/defendant: The London Metal Exchange; Respondent/defendant: LME Clear Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim (a1 P1) / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Judicial Review, Ultra Vires, Procedural Fairness, Irrationality, Human Rights Act 1998 Article 1 Protocol 1 (a1 P1), Financial Services Regulation, Contractual Powers of Exchanges
Administrative Law Financial Regulation Human Rights Judicial Review Ultra Vires Procedural Fairness Irrationality Human Rights Act 1998 Article 1 Protocol 1 (a1 P1) +2 more

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 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elliott Associates L.P.

Appellant/claimant

Elliott International L.P.

Appellant/claimant

The London Metal Exchange

Respondent/defendant

LME Clear Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review and Human Rights Claim (a1 P1) / Appeal From Divisional Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the LME's cancellation of nickel trades on 8 March 2022 was ultra vires, irrational, procedurally unfair, or contrary to A1P1.
  2. 2 Whether the LME had the power to cancel trades under its rules and relevant legislation.
  3. 3 Whether Elliott's rights constituted 'possessions' under A1P1 and if so, whether there was an unlawful interference.

Ratio Decidendi

The LME's decision to cancel the 8 March 2022 nickel trades was lawful, rational, and within its powers under TR 22 and the relevant regulatory framework. There was no procedural unfairness given the urgency and market context. Elliott's rights, even if qualifying as possessions under A1P1, were always subject to lawful cancellation and no unlawful interference occurred. Any interference was justified and proportionate given the risk of catastrophic market failure.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed. No relief granted to the appellants.