Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, (2000) 257 N.R. 1 (HL)
Case Date | May 18, 2000 |
Jurisdiction | Canada (Federal) |
Citations | (2000), 257 N.R. 1 (HL) |
Three Rivers v. Bk. of England (2000), 257 N.R. 1 (HL)
MLB headnote and full text
Three Rivers District Council and Others (original appellants and cross respondents) v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England (original respondents and cross-appellants)
Indexed As: Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England
House of Lords
London, England
Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett
May 18, 2000.
Summary:
The Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg corporation, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed. The cause of the collapse was fraud on a vast scale perpetrated at a senior level of BCCI. The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, commenced an action against the Bank of England, which had supervisory authority over banks operating in the United Kingdom. The plaintiffs pleaded the tort of misfeasance in public office by senior Bank of England officials and pleaded breaches of Community law, in particular breaches of the Directive of 1977 which introduced a statutorily based licensing system. Preliminary issues arose as to whether the causes of action based on the tort of misfeasance in public office and on breaches of Community law were sustainable in law. The principal legal issues for decision were the precise ingredients of the tort of misfeasance in public office and whether the Directive of 1977 conferred rights of compensation on depositors. A motions judge struck out both causes of action as unsustainable. See [1996] 3 All E.R. 558. The plaintiffs appealed.
The Court of Appeal, Auld, L.J., dissenting, in a decision reported [2000] 2 W.L.R. 15, dismissed the appeal. The plaintiffs appealed again.
The House of Lords dismissed the appeal regarding the Community law issue, holding that the Directive of 1977 was not intended to confer rights on individual depositors. The court stated the requirements of the tort of misfeasance in public office and adjourned this part of the appeal for further argument.
Banks and Banking - Topic 7607
Foreign banks - Regulation and supervision - The Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg corporation, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed because of fraud on a vast scale perpetrated at a senior level - The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, sued the Bank of England, which had supervisory authority over banks operating in the United Kingdom - The plaintiffs alleged breaches of Community law, in particular breaches of the Directive of 1977 which introduced a statutorily based licensing system - The House of Lords affirmed that the action based on Community law was unsustainable because the Directive was not intended to confer rights on individual depositors.
Torts - Topic 9162
Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The House of Lords, per Lord Steyn, discussed the tort of misfeasance in public office, including the early history and set out and discussed the elements of the tort - See paragraphs 9 to 30, 34, 91 to 111, 113 to 131 and 146 to 157.
Torts - Topic 9162
Duty of care - Particular relationships - Claims against public officials, authorities or boards - Misfeasance in or abuse of public office - The Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. (BCCI), a Luxembourg corporation, which carried on business in the United Kingdom, collapsed because of fraud on a vast scale perpetrated at a senior level - The plaintiffs, more than 6,000 depositors, sued the Bank of England, which had supervisory authority over banks operating in the United Kingdom - The plaintiffs pleaded the tort of misfeasance in public office - The lower courts ruled that the cause of action based on the tort of misfeasance was unsustainable and should be struck out - The House of Lords stated the requirements of the tort of misfeasance in public office and adjourned the appeal on this issue for further argument.
Cases Noticed:
Turner v. Sterling (1672), 2 Vent. 25, refd to. [para. 9].
Ashby v. White (1703), 1 Smith L.C. 13th Ed. 253, refd to. [para. 9].
Davis v. Bromley Corp., [1908] 1 K.B. 170, refd to. [para. 9].
Dunlop v. Woollahra Municipal Council, [1982] A.C. 158 (P.C.), refd to. [paras. 9, 116].
Bourgoin S.A. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, [1986] Q.B. 716 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 9, 93, 151].
Yeu et al. v. Hong Kong (Attorney General), [1988] A.C. 175; 82 N.R. 321 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 10].
Davis v. Radcliffe, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 821 (P.C.), refd to. [para. 10].
Calveley v. Chief Constable of Merseyside; Worrall v. Chief Constable of Merseyside; Park v. Chief Constable of Greater Manchester, [1989] A.C. 1228 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 119].
P1 et al. v. Bedfordshire County Council, [1995] 2 A.C. 633; 185 N.R. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 120].
Lonrho Ltd. v. Shell Petroleum Co. (No. 2), [1982] A.C. 173 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 116].
Beaudesert Shire Council v. Smith (1966), 120 C.L.R. 145, refd to. [para. 10].
Northern Territory v. Mengel (1995), 69 A.J.L.R. 527 (Aust. H.C.), refd to. [paras. 10, 17, 100, 115, 153].
Bradford Corp. v. Pickles, [1895] A.C. 587, refd to. [para. 10].
Allen v. Flood, [1898] A.C. 1, refd to. [para. 10].
Jones v. Swansea City Council, [1990] 1 W.L.R. 54 (C.A.), revd. [1990] 1 W.L.R. 1453; 132 N.R. 81 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 10, 150].
R. v. Bowden, [1996] 1 W.L.R. 98, refd to. [para. 10].
Racz v. Home Office, [1994] 2 A.C. 45 (H.L.), refd to. [paras. 13, 119].
Drewe v. Coulton (1787), 1 East 563; 102 E.R. 217, refd to. [para. 15].
Tozer v. Child (1857), 7 E. & B. 377; 119 E.R. 1286, refd to. [paras. 15, 92].
Cullen v. Morris (1819), 2 Stark 577; 171 E.R. 741, refd to. [paras. 15, 108].
Ackerley v. Parkinson (1815), 3 M. & S. 411; 105 E.R. 665, refd to. [para. 15].
Harman v. Tappenden (1801), 1 East 555; 102 E.R. 214, refd to. [paras. 15, 91].
Taylor v. Nesfield (1854), 3 E. & B. 724; 118 E.R. 1312, refd to. [para. 15].
Garrett v. Attorney General, [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 332, refd to. [paras. 17, 100, 125, 152].
Rawlinson v. Rice, [1997] 2 N.Z.L.R. 651, refd to. [para. 17].
R. v. Cunningham, [1957] 2 Q.B. 396 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Caldwell, [1982] A.C. 341, refd to. [para. 18].
R. v. Lawrence, [1982] A.C. 510 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 18].
Lam v. Brennan, [1997] 3 P.L.R. 22 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
R. v. Chief Constable of North Wales Police; Ex parte A.B., [1999] Q.B. 396 (D.C.), refd to. [para. 24].
Barnard v. Restormel Borough Council, [1998] 3 P.L.R. 27 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 24, 108].
W. v. Essex County Council, [1999] Fam. 90 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 24].
Brasserie du Pecheur S.A. v. Federal Republic of Germany; R. v. Secretary of State for Transport; Ex parte Factortame (No. 4) (Nos. C-46/93, C-48/93), [1996] Q.B. 404, refd to. [paras. 29, 40].
N.V. Algemene Transport-en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Nederlandse administratie der belastingen (No. 26/62), [1963] E.C.R. 1, refd to. [para. 40].
Becker v. Finanzamt Műnster-Innenstadt (No. 8/81), [1982] E.C.R. 53, refd to. [para. 41].
Francovich v. Italian Republic (Nos. C-6/90, C-9/90), [1995] I.C.R. 722, refd to. [para. 43].
R. v. United Kingdom (Secretary of State for Transport); Ex parte Factortame Ltd. et al., [1999] 3 W.L.R. 1062; [1999] N.R. Uned. 123 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 44].
Dillenkoffer v. Federal Republic of Germany (Nos. C-178/94, C-179/94, C-188/94, C-189/94, C-190/94), [1997] Q.B. 259, refd to. [para. 45].
Norbrook Laboratories Ltd. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (No. C-127/95), [1998] E.C.R. 1-1531 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 47].
Société Civile Immobilière Parodi v. Banque H. Albert de Bary et Cie (No. C-222/95), [1997] E.C.R. 1-3899 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [paras. 52, 133].
Commission of the European Communities v. Council of the European Communities (No. 45/86), [1987] E.C.R. 1493, refd to. [para. 53].
Federal Republic of Germany v. European Parliament and Council of the European Union (No. C-233/94), [1997] E.C.R. I-2405 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [para. 55].
Criminal Proceedings against Romanellii, Re (Case No. C-366/97), [1999] All E.R. (E.C.) 473, refd to. [para. 59].
Verein für Konsumenteninformation v. Österreichische Kreditversicherungs A.G. (No. C-364/96), [1998] E.C.R. I-2949, refd to. [para. 66].
Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (No. C-131/88), [1991] E.C.R. I-825, refd to. [para. 67].
Commission of the European Communities v. Federal Republic of Germany (No. C-298/95), [1996] E.C.R. I-6747, refd to. [para. 67].
Wagner Miret v. Fondo de Garantia Salarial (No. C-334/92), [1993] E.C.R. I-6911, refd to. [paras. 74, 140].
Leur-Bloem v. Inspecteur der Belastingdienst/Ondernemingen Amsterdam 2 (No. C-28/95), [1998] Q.B. 182, refd to. [para. 74].
Gemeente Hillegom v. Hillenius (No. 110/94), [1985] 10 E.C.R. 3947 (Eur. Ct.), refd to. [para. 80].
Henly v. Lyme Corp. (1828), 5 Bing 91, refd to. [paras. 119, 155].
R. v. Dytham, [1979] Q.B. 722 (C.A.), refd to. [paras. 120, 155].
Ferguson v. Kinnoull (Earl) (1842), 9 Cl. & Fin. 251, refd to. [para. 155].
Statutes Noticed:
Banking Act (U.K.) (1987), sect. 1(4) [para. 37].
First Council Banking Co-ordination Directive (1977) (77/780/E.E.C.), generally [para. 1 et seq.].
Authors and Works Noticed:
Arrowsmith, Civil Liability and Public Authorities (1992), pp. 226 to 234 [para. 9].
Craig and de Búrca, E.U. Law (2nd Ed. 1998), p. 120 [para. 53].
Prechal, Sacha, Directives in European Community Law (1995), p. 138 [para. 134].
Smith, John Cyril, and Hogan, Brian, Criminal Law (9th Ed. 1999), pp. 60 to 69 [para. 18].
Winfield and Jolowicz on Tort (15th Ed. 1998), p. 55 [para. 10].
Counsel:
David Vaughan, Q.C., and Richard Sheldon, Q.C., for the appellants;
Paul Lasok, Q.C., for the respondents.
Agents:
Lord Neill of Bladen, Q.C., for the appellants;
Nicholas Stadlen, Q.C., for the respondents.
This case was heard on January 24, 25, 26 and 27, 2000, before Lord Steyn, Lord Hope of Craighead, Lord Hutton, Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough and Lord Millett of the House of Lords. The decision of the House of Lords was given on May 18, 2000, when the following speeches were delivered:
Lord Steyn - see paragraphs 1 to 33;
Lord Hope of Craighead - see paragraphs 34 to 90;
Lord Hutton - see paragraphs 91 to 111;
Lord Hobhouse of Woodborough - see paragraphs 112 to 131;
Lord Millett - see paragraphs 132 to 158.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Alberta (Minister of Infrastructure) v. Nilsson,
...refd to. [para. 70]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1120 ; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 ; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85]. Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 488 ; 159 B.C.A.C. 14 ; 259 W.A.C.......
-
St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1074 (SC)
...W.A.C. 14; 198 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 182]. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C.......
-
Genesis Land Development Corp. et al. v. Alberta et al., 2009 ABQB 221
...(2005), 334 N.R. 198; 206 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80]. Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 14; 246 W.A.C. 14; 20......
-
Ceapro Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., 2008 SKQB 76
...v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 146]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 3 All E.R. 1; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 146]. Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al. (2000), 142 O.A.C. 149; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 147]. Decock ......
-
St. Elizabeth Home Society v. Hamilton (City) et al., [2005] O.T.C. 1074 (SC)
...W.A.C. 14; 198 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 178]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 182]. Rizzo & Rizzo Shoes Ltd. (Bankrupt), Re, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 27; 221 N.R. 241; 106 O.A.C.......
-
Alberta (Minister of Infrastructure) v. Nilsson,
...refd to. [para. 70]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England (No. 3), [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1120 ; [2000] 3 All E.R. 1 ; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. 85]. Powder Mountain Resorts Ltd. et al. v. British Columbia et al., [2001] 11 W.W.R. 488 ; 159 B.C.A.C. 14 ; 259 W.A.C.......
-
Genesis Land Development Corp. et al. v. Alberta et al., 2009 ABQB 221
...(2005), 334 N.R. 198; 206 O.A.C. 395 (S.C.C.), refd to. [para. 80]. Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England, [2000] 2 W.L.R. 1220; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), refd to. [para. Uni-Jet Industrial Pipe Ltd. et al. v. Canada (Attorney General) et al. (2001), 156 Man.R.(2d) 14; 246 W.A.C. 14; 20......
-
Ceapro Inc. v. Saskatchewan et al., 2008 SKQB 76
...v. Duplessis, [1959] S.C.R. 121, consd. [para. 146]. Three Rivers District Council et al. v. Bank of England, [2000] 3 All E.R. 1; 257 N.R. 1 (H.L.), consd. [para. 146]. Odhavji Estate et al. v. Woodhouse et al. (2000), 142 O.A.C. 149; 194 D.L.R.(4th) 577 (C.A.), consd. [para. 147]. Decock ......