Barings Bank Plc & Anor v Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm) & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1155 (18 July 2002)

Barings Bank Plc & Anor v Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm) & Ors [2002] EWCA Civ 1155 (18 July 2002)

There was no compelling reason to set aside the grant of permission to appeal as there was no irregularity, no misleading of the court, and the fact that the appeal is now only relevant to costs does not justify intervention under CPR 52.9.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 1155
Parties
Claimant/applicant: Barings Bank Plc (in liquidation); Claimant/applicant: Bishopscourt (BS) Limited (in liquidation); Defendant/respondent: Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Chaly Chee Khgong Lah; Defendant/respondent: Po'ad Bin Shaik Abu Makar Mattar; Defendant/respondent: Khoo Kum Wing; Defendant/respondent: SJ Tan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 July 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Set Aside Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Permission to Appeal, Costs, Strike Out Applications, Auditor Liability, Parent and Subsidiary Company Claims
Civil Procedure Banking Law Professional Negligence Setting Aside Permission to Appeal Costs Strike Out Applications Auditor Liability Parent and Subsidiary Company Claims

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barings Bank Plc (in liquidation)

Claimant/applicant

Bishopscourt (BS) Limited (in liquidation)

Claimant/applicant

Coopers & Lybrand (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Chaly Chee Khgong Lah

Defendant/respondent

Po'ad Bin Shaik Abu Makar Mattar

Defendant/respondent

Khoo Kum Wing

Defendant/respondent

SJ Tan

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Set Aside Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a compelling reason under CPR 52.9 to set aside permission to appeal
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is now only relevant to costs and if that justifies setting aside permission
  3. 3 Whether the applicants misled the court regarding the amendment application

Ratio Decidendi

There was no compelling reason to set aside the grant of permission to appeal as there was no irregularity, no misleading of the court, and the fact that the appeal is now only relevant to costs does not justify intervention under CPR 52.9.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside the grant of permission to appeal refused with costs assessed at £27,817.48
  • Appeal stayed pending the outcome of the BFS action