Leeds City Council & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor

Leeds City Council & Ors v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor

The claimants' pleadings do not disclose a legally sufficient case of reliance for misrepresentation because they do not assert that any natural person was aware that the alleged representations were being made at the relevant time. Assumption or subconscious operation is insufficient in law for reliance in this context, particularly in light of the authorities in similar LIBOR cases. Accordingly, the claims have no real prospect of success and are struck out. The affirmation issue does not arise, but even if it did, it would not be suitable for summary determination at this stage.

Parties
Claimant: Leeds City Council; Claimant: Greater Manchester Combined Authority; Claimant: Newcastle City Council; Claimant: North East Lincolnshire Council; Claimant: Nottingham City Council; Claimant: Oldham Council; Claimant: Sheffield Council; Claimant: London Borough of Newham; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC; Defendant: Barclays Bank UK PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Summary Judgment)
Outcome
Claims struck out (for failure to plead legally sufficient reliance); affirmation issue not determined.
Legal Topics
Misrepresentation, Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Rescission, Affirmation, LIBOR Manipulation, Summary Judgment, Strike Out
Contract Law Tort Law Banking and Finance Misrepresentation Fraudulent Misrepresentation Rescission Affirmation LIBOR Manipulation +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 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leeds City Council

Claimant

Greater Manchester Combined Authority

Claimant

Newcastle City Council

Claimant

North East Lincolnshire Council

Claimant

Nottingham City Council

Claimant

Oldham Council

Claimant

Sheffield Council

Claimant

London Borough of Newham

Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Barclays Bank UK PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Summary Judgment)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimants' pleadings disclose a legally sufficient case of reliance for misrepresentation claims (the Reliance Issue)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants have affirmed the contracts and thus lost the right to rescind (the Affirmation Issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The claimants' pleadings do not disclose a legally sufficient case of reliance for misrepresentation because they do not assert that any natural person was aware that the alleged representations were being made at the relevant time. Assumption or subconscious operation is insufficient in law for reliance in this context, particularly in light of the authorities in similar LIBOR cases. Accordingly, the claims have no real prospect of success and are struck out. The affirmation issue does not arise, but even if it did, it would not be suitable for summary determination at this stage.

Court Disposition

Claims struck out (for failure to plead legally sufficient reliance); affirmation issue not determined.

Orders

  • Claims by Leeds City Council and others and London Borough of Newham against Barclays Bank PLC and Barclays Bank UK PLC are struck out.
  • No summary determination on affirmation; issue reserved.