LBI HF (In Winding Up Proceedings) v Stanford & Anor

LBI HF (In Winding Up Proceedings) v Stanford & Anor

The application for permission to appeal was refused because Mr Stanford had no real prospect of success in overturning the judge's findings that no binding TFI agreement existed, that any misrepresentation was made to TFI and not to Mr Stanford, and that the judge's assessment of witness credibility was proper and fair. The absence of essential terms and identified parties precluded contract formation under Luxembourg law, and the alleged misrepresentation was not actionable or directed to Mr Stanford personally.

Parties
Applicant: LBI HF; Respondent: Stanford; Respondent: Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (LLux)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Formation of Contract, Misrepresentation, Winding Up of Credit Institutions, Set Off, Damages
Contract Law Banking Law Formation of Contract Misrepresentation Winding Up of Credit Institutions Set Off Damages

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LBI HF

Applicant

Stanford

Respondent

Landsbanki Luxembourg SA (LLux)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Renewed Oral Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in finding no binding TFI agreement was concluded between the parties
  2. 2 Whether the alleged misrepresentation regarding the bond was actionable and made to Mr Stanford
  3. 3 Whether the judge's adverse credibility findings against Mr Stanford were unfair

Ratio Decidendi

The application for permission to appeal was refused because Mr Stanford had no real prospect of success in overturning the judge's findings that no binding TFI agreement existed, that any misrepresentation was made to TFI and not to Mr Stanford, and that the judge's assessment of witness credibility was proper and fair. The absence of essential terms and identified parties precluded contract formation under Luxembourg law, and the alleged misrepresentation was not actionable or directed to Mr Stanford personally.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused

Orders

  • Application refused