B, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 73 (31 January 2018)

B, R. v [2018] EWCA Crim 73 (31 January 2018)

The judge was entitled to find, based on the intrinsic terms of the Euribor Code and expert evidence on Belgian law, that panel banks were prohibited from submitting rates to create trading advantage, and that extrinsic evidence was not required where the contract's meaning was clear. The judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and standard of proof, and the Libor case law was properly considered as analogous.

Citation
[2018] EWCA Crim 73
Parties
Respondent: The Crown; Appellant: B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Ruling Prior to Trial
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Conspiracy to Defraud, Benchmark Manipulation, Interpretation of Foreign Law, Euribor Code of Conduct, Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence, Standard of Proof, Good Faith in Contracts
Criminal Law Financial Regulation Conflict of Laws Conspiracy to Defraud Benchmark Manipulation Interpretation of Foreign Law Euribor Code of Conduct Admissibility of Extrinsic Evidence +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Crown

Respondent

B

Appellant

Procedural Posture

Criminal Appeal / Appeal Against Preparatory Hearing Ruling Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Article 6.1 of the Euribor Code prohibits panel banks from submitting rates to create trading advantage
  2. 2 Whether Belgian law requires the court to admit extrinsic evidence in interpreting the Code
  3. 3 Whether the Libor case principles are relevant to Euribor under Belgian law

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to find, based on the intrinsic terms of the Euribor Code and expert evidence on Belgian law, that panel banks were prohibited from submitting rates to create trading advantage, and that extrinsic evidence was not required where the contract's meaning was clear. The judge correctly applied the relevant legal principles and standard of proof, and the Libor case law was properly considered as analogous.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Judge's preparatory hearing ruling affirmed
  • Reporting restrictions to continue until conclusion of trial or further order